ft) EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Regional Benefits Analysis for
the Final Section 316(b) Phase III
Existing Facilities Rule
June 2006
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (4303T)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-821-R-04-007
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Introduction
Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter Al: Methods Used to Evaluate I&E
Al-1 Objectives of EPA's Evaluation of I&E Data
A1-2 Rationale for EPA's Approach to Evaluating I&E of Harvested Species
A1-3 Source Data
A1-4 Methods for Evaluating I&E
A1 -5 Extrapolation of I&E Rates
Chapter A2: Uncertainty
A2-1 Types of Uncertainty
A2-2 Monte Carlo Analysis as a Tool for Quantifying Uncertainty
A2-3 EPA's Uncertainty Analysis of Yield Estimates
A2-4 Conclusions
Chapter A3: Economic Benefit Categories and Valuation
A3-1 Economic Benefit Categories Applicable to the Regulatory Analysis Options for Phase III Facilities
A3-2 Direct Use Benefits
A3-3 Indirect Use Benefits
A3-4 Non-Use Benefits
A3-5 Summary of Benefit Categories
A3-6 Causality: Linking the Regulatory Analysis Options for Phase III Existing Facilities to Beneficial
Outcomes
A3-7 Conclusions
Chapter A4: Methods for Estimating Commercial Fishing Benefits
A4-1 Overview of the Commercial Fisheries Sector
A4-2 The Role of Fishing Regulations and Regulatory Participants
A4-3 Overview of U.S. Commercial Fisheries
A4-4 Prices, Quantities, Gross Revenue, and Economic Surplus
A4-5 Economic Surplus
A4-6 Surplus Estimation When There is No Anticipated Change in Price
A4-7 Surplus Estimation Under Scenarios in Which Price May Change
A4-8 Estimating Post-Harvest Economic Surplus in Tiered Markets
A4-9 Nonmonetary Benefits of Commercial Fishing
A4-10 Estimating Producer Surplus
A4-11 Methods Used to Estimate Commercial Fishery Benefits from Reduced I&E; Summary
A4-12 Limitations and Uncertainties
Chapter AS: Recreational Fishing Benefits Methodology
A5-1 Literature Review Procedure and Organization
A5-2 Description of Studies
A5-3 Meta-Analysis of Recreational Fishing Studies: Regression Model
A5-4 Application of the Meta-Analysis Results to the Analysis of Recreational Benefits of the
Section 316(b) Regulatory Analysis Options for Phase III Facilities
A5-5 Limitations and Uncertainties
TOCi
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment Table of Contents
Chapter A6: Qualitative Assessment of Non-Use Benefits
A6-1 Public Policy Significance of Ecological Improvements from the Regulatory Analysis Options for
Phase III Facilities
Chapter A7: Entrainment Survival
A7-1 The Causes of Entrainment Mortality
A7-2 Factors Affecting the Determination of Entrainment Survival
A7-3 Detailed Analysis of Entrainment Survival Studies Reviewed
A7-4 Discussion of Review Criteria
A7-5 Applicability of Entrainment Survival Studies to Other Facilities
A7-6 Conclusions
Chapter A8: Discounting Benefits
A8-1 Timing of Benefits
A8-2 Discounting and Annualization
Chapter A9: Threatened & Endangered Species Analysis Methods
A9-1 Listed Species Background
A9-2 Benefit Categories Applicable for Impacts on T&E Species
A9-3 Methods Available for Estimating the Economic Value Associated with I&E of T&E Species
A9-4 Issues in Estimating and Valuing Environmental Impacts from I&E on T&E Species
Part B: California
Chapter Bl: Background
B1 -1 Facility Characteristics
Chapter B2: Evaluation of Impingement and Entrainment in California
B2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated
B2-2 I&E Data Evaluated
B2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III Facilities in California Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Yield
B2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities in the California Region Under Alternative Options
B2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating Recreational and Commercial Losses
Chapter B3: Commercial Fishing Benefits
B3-1 Baseline Commercial Losses
B3-2 Expected Benefits Under Regulatory Analysis Options
Chapter B4: Recreational Use Benefits
B4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-Analysis
B4-2 Limitations and Uncertainty
Chapter B5: Federally Listed T&E Species in the California Region
Appendix Bl: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I&E in the California Region
Appendix B2: Reductions in I&E Under Supplemental Policy Options
Appendix B3: Commercial Fishing Benefits Under Supplemental Policy Options
Appendix B4: Recreational Use Benefits Under Supplemental Policy Options
we a
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment Table of Contents
Part C: North Atlantic
Chapter Cl: Background
C1 -1 Facility Characteristics
Chapter C2: Evaluation of Impingement and Entrainment in the North Atlantic Region
C2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated
C2-2 I&E Data Evaluated
C2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III Facilities in the North Atlantic Region Expressed as
Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Yield
C2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities in the North Atlantic Region Under Alternative Options
C2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating Recreational and Commercial Losses
Chapter C3: Commercial Fishing Benefits
C3-1 Baseline Commercial Losses
C3-2 Expected Benefits Under Regulatory Analysis Options
Chapter C4: Recreational Use Benefits
C4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-Analysis
C4-2 Limitations and Uncertainty
Chapter C5: Federally Listed T&E Species in the North Atlantic Region
Appendix Cl: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I&E in the North Atlantic Region
Appendix C2: Reductions in I&E Under Supplemental Policy Options
Appendix C3: Commercial Fishing Benefits Under Supplemental Policy Options
Appendix C4: Recreational Use Benefits Under Supplemental Policy Options
Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Chapter Dl: Background
Dl-1 Facility Characteristics
Chapter D2: Evaluation of Impingement and Entrainment in the Mid-Atlantic Region
D2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated
D2-2 I&E Data Evaluated
D2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region Expressed as
Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Yield
D2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region Under Alternative Options
D2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating Recreational and Commercial Losses
Chapter D3: Commercial Fishing Benefits
D3-1 Baseline Commercial Losses
D3-2 Expected Benefits Under Regulatory Analysis Options
Chapter D4: Recreational Use Benefits
D4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-Analysis
D4-2 Limitations and Uncertainty
Chapter D5: Federally Listed T&E Species in the Mid-Atlantic Region
TOC Hi
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment Table of Contents
Appendix Dl: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I&E in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix D2: Reductions in I&E Under Supplemental Policy Options
Appendix D3: Commercial Fishing Benefits Under Supplemental Policy Options
Appendix D4: Recreational Use Benefits Under Supplemental Policy Options
Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Chapter El: Background
El-1 Facility Characteristics
Chapter E2: Evaluation of Impingement and Entrainment in the Gulf of Mexico
E2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated
E2-2 I&E Data Evaluated
E2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Gulf Region Expressed as
Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Yield
E2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region Under Alternative Options
E2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating Recreational and Commercial Losses
Chapter E3: Commercial Fishing Benefits
E3-1 Baseline Commercial Losses
E3-2 Expected Benefits Under Regulatory Analysis Options
Chapter E4: Recreational Use Benefits
E4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-Analysis
E4-2 Limitations and Uncertainty
Chapter E5: Federally Listed T&E Species in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Appendix El: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I&E in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Appendix E2: Reductions in I&E Under Supplemental Policy Options
Appendix E3: Commercial Fishing Benefits Under Supplemental Policy Options
Appendix E4: Recreational Use Benefits Under Supplemental Policy Options
Part F: The Great Lakes
Chapter Fl: Background
Fl-1 Facility Characteristics
Chapter F2: Evaluation of Impingement and Entrainment in the Great Lakes Region
F2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated
F2-2 I&E Data Evaluated
F2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Great Lakes Region Expressed as
Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Yield
F2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Great Lakes Region Under Alternative Options
F2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating Recreational and Commercial Losses
Chapter F3: Commercial Fishing Benefits
F3-1 Baseline Commercial Losses
F3-2 Expected Benefits Under Regulatory Analysis Options
TOC iv
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment Table of Contents
Chapter F4: Recreational Use Benefits
F4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-Analysis
F4-2 Limitations and Uncertainty
Chapter F5: Federally Listed T&E Species in the Great Lakes Region
Appendix Fl: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I&E in the Great Lakes Region
Appendix F2: Reductions in I&E Under Supplemental Policy Options
Appendix F3: Commercial Fishing Benefits Under Supplemental Policy Options
Appendix F4: Recreational Use Benefits Under Supplemental Policy Options
Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter Gl: Background
Gl-1 Facility Characteristics
Chapter G2: Evaluation of Impingement and Entrainment in the Inland Region
G2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated
G2-2 I&E Data Evaluated
G2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Inland Region Expressed as
Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Yield
G2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Inland Region Under Alternative Options
G2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating Recreational and Commercial Losses
Chapter G3: Commercial Fishing Benefits
Chapter G4: Recreational Use Benefits
G4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-Analysis
G4-2 Limitations and Uncertainty
Chapter G5: Federally Listed T&E Species in the Inland Region
Appendix Gl: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I&E in the Inland Region
Appendix G2: Reductions in I&E Under Supplemental Policy Options
Appendix G3: Commercial Fishing Benefits Under Supplemental Policy Options
Appendix G4: Recreational Use Benefits Under Supplemental Policy Options
Part H: South Atlantic
Chapter HI: Background
Hl-1 Facility Characteristics
Chapter H2: Evaluation of Impingement and Entrainment in the South Atlantic Region
H2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated
H2-2 I&E Data Evaluated
H2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III Facilities in the South Atlantic Region Expressed as Age-1
Equivalents and Foregone Yield
H2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities in the South Atlantic Region
H2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating Recreational and Commercial Losses
TOCv
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment Table of Contents
Chapter H3: Commercial Fishing Benefits
H3-1 Baseline Commercial Losses
H3-2 Expected Benefits Under Regulatory Analysis Options
Chapter H4: Recreational Use Benefits
H4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-Analysis
H4-2 Limitations and Uncertainty
Chapter H5: Federally Listed T&E Species in the South Atlantic Region
Appendix HI: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I&E in the South Atlantic Region
Appendix H2: Reductions in I&E Under Supplemental Policy Options
Appendix H3: Commercial Fishing Benefits Under Supplemental Policy Options
Appendix H4: Recreational Use Benefits Under Supplemental Policy Options
Part I: National Benefits
Chapter II: National Benefits
11-1 Calculating National Losses and Benefits
11-2 Summary of Baseline Losses and Expected Reductions in I&E
11-3 Time Profile of Benefits
11-4 National Benefits from Eliminating and Reducing I&E Losses
Appendix II: National Benefits Under Supplemental Policy Options
References
TOC vi
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
Contents
Cooling water intake structures (CWIS) may cause
1-1 Summary of the Regulatory and
Supplemental Options 1-1
1-2 Study Design 1-4
1-2.1 Coastal Regions 1-5
1-2.2 Great Lakes Region 1-5
1-2.3 Inland Region 1-5
1-3 Report Organization 1-5
1-3.1 Part A: Study Methods 1-5
1-3.2 Parts B-H: Regional Reports 1-6
1-3.3 Part I: Total National Benefits 1-6
adverse environmental impact (AEI) through several
means, including impingement (where fish and other
aquatic life are trapped on equipment at the entrance
to CWIS) and entrainment (where eggs, larvae, and
other aquatic organisms are taken into the cooling
system, passed through the heat exchanger, and then
discharged back into the source water body).
Facilities potentially subject to regulation under
Phase III of the 316(b) rulemaking process include
the following types of facilities that employ a
cooling water intake structure and are designed to
withdraw two million gallons per day (MOD) or more from waters of the United States: (1) existing
manufacturing and other types of existing facilities, e.g., offshore oil and gas extraction facilities (this group of
facilities is referred to as "manufacturing facilities" in this document); (2) existing electric power producing
facilities with a design intake flow (DIP) of less than 50 million MGD; and (3) new offshore oil and gas
extraction facilities. These facilities are referred to as a group as "potential Phase III facilities." Phase III does not
include facilities regulated under Phase I (new facilities other than new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities)
or Phase II (existing power producing facilities with a DIP of 50 MGD or greater). More information on the
regulated sectors and facilities can be found in the Economic and Benefits Analysis for the Final Section 316(b)
Phase III Existing Facilities Rule (U.S. EPA, 2006a).
This Regional Benefits Assessment presents the methods used by EPA for the environmental assessment and
benefits analysis for the regulatory analysis options considered. EPA's analysis had three main objectives: (1) to
develop a national estimate of the magnitude of impingement and entrainment (I&E) at potentially regulated
Phase III facilities; (2) to estimate changes in the I&E losses as a result of projected reductions in I&E under the
various analysis options; and (3) to estimate the national economic benefits of reduced I&E. The environmental
assessment and benefits analyses presented in this report examines electric generators and most manufacturing
facilities subject to the 316(b) Phase III regulation. EPA was unable to assess benefits in the same manner for
existing offshore oil and gas extraction facilities due to I&E data limitations. In addition, EPA did not
quantitatively assess benefits for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities because to do so would require
EPA to project where the new facilities would locate and operate in the future, a task for which EPA does not
have sufficient information at this time. Part A of the document provides details of the methods used. Parts B-H
present reports of results for each of seven study regions. Finally, Part I presents national estimates. The following
sections provide an overview of the study design and a summary of the contents of each part of the document.
1-1 Summary of the Regulatory and Supplemental Options
EPA considered requirements for Phase III existing facilities to meet performance standards similar to those
required in the final Phase II rule, including an 80-95% reduction in impingement mortality and a 60-90%
reduction in entrainment. In the final Phase III rule, however, EPA determined that uniform national standards are
not the most effective way to address cooling water intake structures at existing Phase III facilities. Phase III
existing facilities continue to be subject to permit conditions implementing section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act
set by the permit director on a case-by-case basis, using best professional judgment (BPJ).
1-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment Introduction
The performance standards presented at proposal were intended to reflect the best technology available for
minimizing AEIs determined on a national categorical basis. The type of performance standard applicable to a
particular facility (i.e., reductions in impingement only or I&E) would have varied based on several factors,
including the facility's location (i.e., source waterbody) and the proportion of the waterbody withdrawn.
Impingement reductions were required at all facilities subject to the performance standards. Entrainment
reductions are required at facilities (1) located on an estuary, tidal river, ocean, or one of the Great Lakes; or
(2) located on a freshwater river and withdrawing greater than 5% of the mean annual flow of the waterbody. At
proposal, facilities located on lakes or reservoirs may not disrupt the thermal stratification of the waterbody,
except in cases where the disruption is beneficial to the management of fisheries.
EPA proposed three possible options for defining which existing manufacturing facilities would be subject to
uniform national requirements, based on DIP threshold and source waterbody type: the facility has a total DIP of
50 MOD or more, and withdraws from any waterbody; the facility has a total DIP of 200 MOD or more, and
withdraws from any waterbody; or the facility has a total DIP of 100 MGD or more and withdraws water
specifically from an ocean, estuary, tidal river, or one of the Great Lakes. These are options 5, 9, and 8,
respectively, in Table 1-1 below.
In addition, EPA considered a number of options (specifically options 2, 3, 4, and 7 below) that establish different
performance standards for certain groups or subcategories of Phase III existing facilities. Under these options,
EPA would have applied the proposed performance standards and compliance alternatives (i.e., the Phase II
requirements) to the higher threshold facilities, apply the less-stringent requirements as specified below to the
middle flow threshold category, and would apply BPJ below the lower threshold.
The regulatory options as well as other options considered are described in detail below:
Option 1: Facilities with a DIP of 20 MGD or greater would be subject to the performance standards discussed
above. Under this option, section 316(b) permit conditions for Phase III facilities with a DIP of less than 20 MGD
would be established on a case-by-case, BPJ, basis.
Option 2: Facilities with a DIP of 50 MGD or greater, as well as facilities with a DIP between 20 and 50 MGD
(20 MGD inclusive), when located on estuaries, oceans, or the Great Lakes would be subject to the performance
standards. Facilities with a DIP between 20 and 50 MGD (20 MGD inclusive) that withdraw from freshwater
rivers and lakes would have to meet the performance standards for impingement mortality only and not for
entrainment. Under this option, section 316(b) requirements for Phase III facilities with a DIP of less than
20 MGD would be established on a case-by-case, BPJ, basis.
Option 3: Facilities with a DIP of 50 MGD or greater would be subject to the performance standards. Facilities
with a DIP between 20 and 50 MGD (20 MGD inclusive) would have to meet the performance standards for
impingement mortality only and not for entrainment. Under this option, section 316(b) requirements for Phase III
facilities with a DIP of less than 20 MGD would be established on a case-by-case, BPJ, basis.
Option 4: Facilities with a DIP of 50 MGD or greater, as well as facilities with a DIP between 20 and 50 MGD
(20 MGD inclusive), when located on estuaries, oceans, or the Great Lakes would be subject to the performance
standards. Facilities that withdraw from freshwater rivers and lakes and all facilities with a DIP of less than
20 MGD would have requirements established on a case-by-case, BPJ, basis.
Option 5: Facilities with a DIP of 50 MGD or greater would be subject to the performance standards. Under this
option, section 316(b) requirements for Phase III facilities with a DIP of less than 50 MGD would be established
on a case-by-case, BPJ, basis.
Option 6: Facilities with a DIP of greater than 2 MGD would be subject to the performance standards. Under this
option, section 316(b) requirements for Phase III facilities with a DIP of 2 MGD or less would be established on a
case-by-case, BPJ, basis.
1-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment
Introduction
Option 7: Facilities with a DIP of 50 MOD or greater would be subject to the performance standards. Facilities
with a DIP between 30 and 50 MGD (30 MGD inclusive) would have to meet the performance standards for
impingement mortality only and not for entrainment. Under this option, section 316(b) requirements for Phase III
facilities with a DIP of less than 30 MGD would be established on a case-by-case, BPJ, basis.
Option 8: Facilities with a DIP of 200 MGD or greater would be subject to the performance standards. Under this
option, section 316(b) requirements for Phase III facilities with a DIP of less than 200 MGD would be established
on a case-by-case, BPJ, basis.
Option 9: Facilities with a DIP of 100 MGD or greater and located on oceans, estuaries, and the Great Lakes
would be subject to the performance standards. Under this regulatory option, section 316(b) requirements for
Phase III facilities with a DIP of less than 100 MGD would be established on a case-by-case, BPJ, basis.
Table 1-1 summarizes which performance standards apply under each of the proposed options considered for
Phase III existing facilities (options 5, 8, and 9) as well as the other options considered:
Table 1-1: Performance Standards for the Regulatory Options Considered
V7JJUU11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
>2MGD
BPJ
BPJ
BPJ
BPJ
20 MGD 30 MGD
50 MGD 100 MGD
I&E
Freshwater rivers and lakes: I only
All other waterbodies: I&E
I only
Estuaries, oceans, Great Lakes:
I&E All other waterbodies: BPJ
BPJ
200 MGD
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
BPJ I only
I&E
BPJ
I&E
RPT Estuaries, oceans, Great Lakes: I&E
All other waterbodies: BPJ
Key:
BPJ - Best Professional Judgment.
I&E - 80-95% reduction in impingement mortality and a 60-90% reduction in entrainment, where applicable.
I only - 80-95% reduction in impingement mortality.
Estuaries - includes tidal rivers and streams.
Lakes - includes lakes and reservoirs.
The discussions in the remainder of this document focus on the three regulatory options comprising the regulatory
proposal (i.e., Options 5, 8, and 9). In the remainder of this document, these three options are referred to as
follows:
Option 5, which would have applied to existing manufacturing facilities with a total DIP of 50 MGD or more and
located on any source waterbody type is referred to as the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option or the
"50 MGD All" option
1-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment Introduction
Option 8, which would have applied to existing manufacturing facilities with a total DIP of 200 MGD or more
and located on any source waterbody type is referred to as the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option or the
"200 MGD All" option.
Option 9, which would have applied to existing manufacturing facilities with a total DIP of 100 MGD or more
and located on certain source waterbody types (i.e., an ocean estuary, tidal river/stream, or one of the Great
Lakes) is referred to as the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option or the "100 MGD CWB" option.
In addition to these three regulatory analysis options, this document also presents information on the other options
that EPA analyzed in development of the Phase III proposal and the final regulation (i.e., Options 2, 3, 4, and 7,
also referred to as the "supplemental options"). The information for the supplemental options is presented in
appendices to the relevant chapters in this report.
1-2 Study Design
EPA's analysis of the regulation examined cooling water intake structure impacts and regulatory benefits at the
regional scale, and then combined regional results to develop national estimates. EPA grouped facilities into
regions for its analysis based on (1) the locations of facilities potentially subject to regulation in Phase III,
(2) similarities among the aquatic species affected by these facilities, and (3) characteristics of commercial and
recreational fishing activities in the area. Table 1-2 lists the number of potentially regulated facilities in each study
region and the number of facilities with technology requirements under each of the regulatory analysis options,
weighted using statistical weights from EPA's survey of the industry. The seven regions and the waterbody types
within each region are described below. Maps showing the facilities in each region are provided in the
introductory chapter of each regional report (Parts B-H of this document).
Table 1-2: Number of Existing Phase III Facilities by Region and Option
# of Potentially # of Facilities Subject to National Technology Requirements
Regulated Existing (weighted)
Phase III Facilities
Region (weighted)3 50 MGD All 200 MGD All 100 MGD CWB
California13
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
National totalb'°
9
5
15
4
11
45
540
629
1
4
3
0
7
18
78
111
0
1
2
0
3
7
13
27
0
3
2
0
7
10
0
22
a Potentially regulated existing Phase III facilities include electric generators with CWIS that withdraw more than
2 MGD but less than 50 MGD and manufacturers with CWIS that withdraw more than 2 MGD and use at least 25%
of the water for cooling purposes.
b Numbers may not sum to totals due to independent rounding.
0 Eighty potentially regulated facilities determined to be baseline closures are excluded from this analysis.
1-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment Introduction
1-2.1 Coastal Regions
Coastal regions include estuary/tidal river and ocean facilities in five of the NOAA Fisheries regions. The North
Atlantic region encompasses Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. The Mid-
Atlantic region includes New York, New Jersey, Maryland, the District of Columbia, Delaware, and Virginia. The
Gulf of Mexico region includes Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and the west coast of Florida. The
California region includes all estuary/tidal river and ocean facilities in California, plus one facility in Hawaii.
Although the Hawaii facility was considered in estimating baseline I&E in the California region, it is not subject
to any of the options described in Table 1-2. Therefore no benefits are anticipated for this facility. The South
Atlantic region includes North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and the east coast of Florida. In the South
Atlantic, all known in-scope facilities have DIFs that are less then 50 MGD, and therefore none are subject to the
options described in Table 1-2. EPA's survey did not locate any Phase III facilities within the Alaska NOAA
Fisheries region. Although one Phase III facility is located in the Pacific Northwest Fisheries region, this facility
is projected to close under the baseline scenario. Therefore, EPA did not include analysis of these two regions in
this assessment.
1-2.2 Great Lakes Region
The Great Lakes region includes all potentially regulated Phase III facilities that withdraw water from Lake
Ontario, Lake Erie, Lake Huron (including Lake St. Clair), Lake Michigan, and Lake Superior, and the connecting
channels (Saint Mary's River, Saint Clair River, Detroit River, Niagara River, and Saint Lawrence River to the
Canadian border). This region definition is based on the definition provided in Section 118(a)(3)(B) of the Clean
Water Act.
1-2.3 Inland Region
The Inland region includes all facilities located on freshwater rivers or streams and lakes or reservoirs, in all
states, with the exception of facilities located in the Great Lakes region.
1-3 Report Organization
1-3.1 Part A: Study Methods
1-3.1.1 Evaluation of I&E
Chapter Al of Part A of this Regional Benefits Assessment describes the methods used to evaluate facility I&E
data. Chapter A2 discusses uncertainties in the analysis. To obtain regional I&E estimates, EPA extrapolated loss
rates from those facilities for which I&E data is available, referred to in this document as model facilities, to all
Phase III facilities within the same region. These results were then summed to develop national estimates. EPA
used I&E data from Phase II facilities to supplement the limited data available for Phase III facilities.
1-3.1.2 Economic Benefits
Chapters A3-A6 and A8-A9 of Part A of this document describe the methods that EPA used for its analysis of the
economic benefits of the section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities. As discussed in Chapter A3, EPA considered
the following benefit categories: recreational fishing benefits, commercial fishing benefits, and non-use benefits.
The analysis of use benefits included benefits from improved commercial fishery yields and benefits to
recreational anglers from improved fishing opportunities. Chapters A4 and A5 provide details on the methods
used for these analyses. Chapter A6 presents qualitative assessment of ecological non-use benefits of the
regulation. Non-use benefits included benefits from reduced I&E of forage species, and the non-landed portion of
commercial and recreational species. Chapter A8 discusses discounting of recreational and commercial benefits.
Methods for estimating benefits to threatened and endangered species are described in Chapter A9.
1-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment Introduction
1-3.2 Parts B-H: Regional Reports
Parts B-H of this Regional Benefits Assessment are reports of results for each study region. Chapter 1 of each
report provides background information on the facilities in the region and a map showing facility locations.
Chapter 2 provides I&E estimates. Benefits estimates are presented in Chapters 3 and 4. Chapter 3 presents
estimates of commercial fishing benefits, and Chapter 4 presents recreational fishing benefits. Chapter 5 presents
information on threatened and endangered species in each region. Appendix 1 of each regional report presents life
history data and the data sources used in evaluations of I&E, and Appendix 2 presents results for supplementary
policy options. Please see the TDD for additional information.
1-3.3 Part I: Total National Benefits
Chapter II summarizes the results of the seven regional analyses and presents the total monetary value of national
baseline losses and benefits for all section 316(b) Phase III manufacturing facilities (except oil and gas extraction
facilities) and power generators.
1-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment
Part A: Evaluation Methods
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A1
Chapter Al: Methods Used to Evaluate I&E
Introduction
This chapter describes the methods used by EPA to
evaluate facility impingement and entrainment (I&E)
data. Section Al-1 discusses the main objectives of
EPA's I&E evaluation. Section Al-2 describes EPA's
general approach to modeling fishery yield and the
rationale for this approach. Section A1-3 describes the
source data for EPA's I&E evaluations. Section A1-4
presents details of the biological models used to
evaluate I&E. Finally, section A1-5 discusses
methods used to extrapolate I&E rates from facilities
with I&E data to other facilities in the same region
without data.
Al-1 Objectives of EPA's Evaluation of
I&E Data
.Al-1
Chapter Contents
Al-1 Objectives of EPA's Evaluation of I&E
Data
Al-2 Rationale for EPA's Approach to
Evaluating I&E of Harvested Species Al-1
Al-2.1 Scope and Objectives of EPA's
Analysis of Harvested Species Al-2
Al-2.2 Data Availability and
Uncertainties Al-2
Al-2.3 Difficulties Distinguishing Causes
of Population Changes Al-3
Al-3 Source Data Al-3
A1 -3.1 Facility Impingement and
Entrainment Monitoring Data Al-3
Al-3.2 Species Groups Al-4
Al-3.3 Species Life History Parameters Al-4
Al-4 Methods for Evaluating I&E Al-5
A1 -4.1 Modeling Age-1 Equivalents Al-5
A1-4.2 Modeling Foregone Fishery
Yield Al-6
Modeling Production Foregone A1-9
Evaluation of Forage Species
Losses Al-10
Extrapolation of I&E Rates Al-11
Al-4.3
Al-4.4
Al-5
EPA's evaluation of I&E data had four main
objectives:
>• to develop a national estimate of the
magnitude of I&E;
>• to standardize I&E rates using common
biological metrics so that rates could be
compared across species, years, facilities, and
geographical regions;
>• to estimate changes in these metrics as a result of projected reductions in I&E under the proposed
regulatory options for the section 316(b) Phase III existing facilities rule; and
>• to estimate the national economic benefits of reduced I&E.
To accomplish these objectives, three loss metrics were derived from the facility I&E monitoring data available to
EPA: (1) foregone age-1 equivalents, (2) foregone fishery yield, and (3) foregone biomass production. The
methods used to calculate these metrics are described in section Al-4. Age-1 equivalent estimates were used to
quantify losses of individuals in terms of a single life stage. Losses of commercial and recreational species were
also expressed as foregone fishery yield. Estimates of production foregone were used to quantify the contribution
of forage species to the yield of harvested species. The following section discusses EPA's rationale for evaluating
the I&E of harvested species in terms of foregone fishery yield. Foregone fishery yield is also referred to as
harvest in the discussion below.
Al-2 Rationale for EPA's Approach to Evaluating I&E of Harvested Species
EPA estimated I&E impacts to all fish and shellfish species for which data were available. EPA focused on
harvested fish and shellfish species primarily because of the availability of economic methods for valuing these
species (see Chapters A3-A6 and A8-A9 for a discussion of all of the economic methods used by EPA to estimate
benefits of the proposed regulatory options for the section 316(b) rule for Phase III existing facilities). EPA's
Al-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter Al
approach to estimating changes in harvest assumed that I&E losses result in a reduction in the number of
harvestable adults in the years following the time at which individual fish are killed by I&E and that future
reductions in I&E will lead to future increases in fish harvest. The approach does not require knowledge of
population size or the total yield of a fishery; it only estimates the incremental yield that is foregone because of
the number of deaths due to I&E.
As discussed in detail in section Al-4.2, EPA's foregone fishery yield analysis employed a specific application of
the Thompson Bell model of fisheries yield (Ricker, 1975) to assess the effects of I&E on net fish harvest. This
model is a relatively simple yield-per-recruit (YPR) model that provides estimates of yield that can be expected
from a cohort offish that is recruited to a fishery. The model requires estimates of size-at-age for particular
species and stage-specific schedules of natural mortality (M) and fishing mortality (F). All of the key parameters
used in the yield model (F, M, and size-at-age), were assumed to be constant for a given species regardless of
changes in I&E rates. Because these parameters are held static for any particular fish stock, YPR is also a constant
value. With this set of parameters fixed, the Thompson Bell model holds that an estimate of recruitment is directly
proportional to an estimate of yield.
EPA recognizes that the assumption that the key parameters are static is an important one that does not fully
reflect the dynamic nature offish populations. However, by focusing on a simple interpretation of each individual
I&E death in terms of foregone yield, EPA concentrated on the simplest, most direct assessment of the potential
economic value of eliminating that death. EPA believes that this approach was warranted given the (1) scope and
objectives of its analysis of harvested species, (2) data available, and (3) difficulties in distinguishing the causes
of population changes. Each of these factors is discussed in the following sections.
Al-2.1 Scope and Objectives of EPA's Analysis of Harvested Species
The simplicity of EPA's approach to modeling yield was consistent with the need to examine the dozens of
harvested species that are vulnerable to I&E at the hundreds of facilities throughout the country that are in scope
of the rule and the overall objective of developing regional- and national-scale estimates. This approach is not
necessarily the best alternative for studies of single facilities for which site-specific details on local fish stocks and
waterbody conditions might make possible the use of more complex assessment approaches (e.g., modeling of
population or community level impacts).
Al-2.2 Data Availability and Uncertainties
Although EPA's approach to modeling foregone fishery yield requires estimates of a large number of stage-
specific growth and mortality parameters, the use of more complex fish population models would rely on an even
larger set of parameters and would require numerous additional and stronger assumptions about the nature of
stock dynamics that would be difficult to defend with available data. Additional uncertainties of population
dynamics models include the relationship between stock size and recruitment, and how growth and mortality rates
may change as a function of stock size and other factors. Obtaining this information for even one fish stock is
time-consuming and resource intensive; obtaining this information for the many species subject to I&E nation-
wide was not possible for EPA's national benefits analysis because of the resources doing so would require.
It is also important to note that information on stock status (e.g., spawning stock biomass, standardized catch-per-
unit-effort, recruitment) is generally only available for harvested species, which represent a minor fraction of I&E
losses. Even for harvested species, stock status is often poorly known. In fact, only 23% of U.S. managed fish
stocks have been fully assessed (U.S. Ocean Commission, 2002).
In addition to a lack of data, there are numerous issues and difficulties with defining the size and spatial extent of
fish stocks. As a result, it is often unclear how I&E losses at particular cooling water intake structures can be
related to specific stocks. For example, a recent study of Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tryannus), one of the
major fish species subject to I&E along the Atlantic Coast of the U.S., indicated that juveniles in Delaware Bay
result from both local and long distance recruitment (Light and Able, 2003). Thus, accounting only for influences
Al-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter Al
on local recruitment would be insufficient for understanding the relationship between recruitment and menhaden
stock size.
Another difficulty is that fisheries managers typically define fish stocks by reference to the geographic scope of
the fishery responsible for landings. However, landings data are reported state by state, which is generally not a
good way to delineate the true spatial extent offish populations. These types of delineations create uncertainty in
the definition of stocks for the purposes of modeling their population dynamics.
Al-2.3 Difficulties Distinguishing Causes of Population Changes
Another problem in developing and implementing more complex models of harvested species is that it is
fundamentally difficult to demonstrate that any particular kind of stress causes a reduction in fish population size.
All fish populations are under a variety of stresses that are difficult to quantify given the data currently available
and that may interact in a non-additive manner. Fish populations are perpetually in flux for numerous reasons, so
determining a baseline population size, then detecting a trend, and then determining if a trend is a significant
deviation from an existing baseline or is simply an expected fluctuation around a stable equilibrium is
problematic. Fish recruitment is a multidimensional process, and identifying and distinguishing the causes of
variance in fish recruitment remains a fundamental problem in fisheries science, stock management, and impact
assessment (Hilborn and Walters, 1992; Quinn and Deriso, 1999; Boreman, 2000). Resolving this issue was
beyond the scope and objectives of EPA's section 316(b) benefits analysis.
Al-3 Source Data
The inputs for EPA's analyses included facility I&E monitoring data collected by facilities with cooling water
intake structures and species life history characteristics from the scientific literature such as growth rates, natural
mortality rates, and fishing mortality rates.
Al-3.1 Facility Impingement and Entrainment Monitoring Data
The general approach to I&E monitoring was similar at most facilities, but investigators used a wide variety of
methods that were specific to the individual studies, e.g., location of sampling stations, sampling gear, sampling
frequency, and enumeration techniques. Facilities generally monitored only fish and shellfish species and did not
monitor I&E of other types of aquatic organisms. Some facilities monitored only a subset of all fish and shellfish
species impinged and entrained.
Impingement monitoring typically involves sampling impingement screens or catchment areas, counting the
impinged fish, and extrapolating the count to an annual basis. Entrainment monitoring typically involves
intercepting a small portion of the intake flow at a selected location in the facility, collecting fish by sieving the
water sample through nets or other collection devices, counting the collected fish, and extrapolating the counts to
an annual basis.
EPA retained all information regarding species, life stage, and loss modality (I or E) as they were originally
reported by the facilities, with the exception of some species aggregation that is described in section A1-3.2.
Facility studies were excluded from EPA's analysis if the information reported was not suitable for the models
used by EPA, which require annual loss rates expressed on a species- and age-specific basis. Studies were also
excluded if the study involved sampling at a limited portion of the facility, e.g., at only one of the several intakes,
but did not supply sufficient information to conduct a reliable extrapolation from recorded losses to an estimate of
total losses (e.g., flow rates at sampled intakes or a description of the reasoning behind the sampling design). In
some cases, entrainment sampling was conducted only during the months that larvae are present at a particular
facility (usually spring and summer), and in such cases EPA assumed that entrainment rates for these months
were indicative of the total annual loss.
Al-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter Al
In most cases the size or life stage (i.e., age) of impinged fish are not reported. However, the EPA modeling
procedure requires the age of the killed fish. Therefore, EPA assumed the age of impinged fish ranged from the
juvenile stage to age 5, and divided the total impingement losses into age groups using proportions corresponding
to the expected life table dictated by species-specific mortality schedules.
EPA adjusted annualized loss rates at some facilities as needed to reflect the history of technological changes at
the facility. The purpose of the adjustments was to interpret loss records in a way that best reflects the current
conditions at each facility. For example, if a facility was known to have installed a protective technology
subsequent to the time that I&E loss rates were recorded, EPA reduced the loss rates in an amount corresponding
to the presumed effectiveness of the protective technology (see the Technical Development Document for the
Final Section 316(b) Phase III Existing Facilities Rule).
Loss rates recorded at each facility were expressed as an annual average rate, regardless of the number of years of
sampling data available. The annual total among the facilities evaluated was then the subject of the detailed
modeling procedure described in section A1-4. Once this analysis was completed, estimates of total losses, by
region, were generated using the extrapolation procedures described in section A1-5.
Al-3.2 Species Groups
EPA organized species for which there were limited data into groups and then conducted detailed analyses of I&E
rates for each species group. Species groups were based on similarities in life history characteristics and
groupings for landings data used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries
office (formerly the National Marine Fisheries Service). An appendix to each regional report in Parts B-H of this
document provides details on the species, species groups, and life history data that were used.
Al-3.3 Species Life History Parameters
The life history parameters used in EPA's analysis of I&E data included species growth rates, the fraction of each
age class vulnerable to harvest, fishing mortality rates, and natural (nonfishing) mortality rates. Each of these
parameters was also stage-specific. For the purpose of this assessment, EPA uses the terms "age" and "stage"
interchangeably. For fish age 1 and older, a stage corresponds directly to the age in years of the fish. For fish
younger than age one, loss data for early life stages were assigned to one of three life stages (eggs, larvae, and
juveniles). If the literature provided survival rates of a more detailed staging scheme (e.g., yolk-sac larvae or post-
yolk-sac larvae), survival rates were combined to reflect survival for the entire larval life stage.
EPA obtained life history parameters from facility reports, the fisheries literature, local fisheries experts, and
publicly available fisheries databases (e.g., FishBase). To the extent feasible, EPA identified region-specific life
history parameters. All I&E losses of a particular species or species group within a region were modeled with a
single set of parameters. Detailed citations are provided in the life history appendix accompanying each regional
report (Parts B-H of the Regional Benefits Assessment).
For most species in most regions a reasonable set of life history parameter values was identified. However, in a
few cases where no information on survival rates was available for individual life stages, EPA deduced survival
rates for an equilibrium population based on records of lifetime fecundity using the relationship presented in
Goodyear (1978) and below in Equation 1:
Al-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter Al
S^g. = 21 fa (Equation 1)
where:
S-eq. = the probability of survival from egg to the expected age of spawning
females
fa = the expected lifetime total egg production
Published fishing mortality rates (F) were assumed to reflect combined mortality due to both commercial and
recreational fishing. Basic fishery science relationships (Ricker, 1975) among mortality and survival rates were
assumed, such as:
Z=M + F (Equation 2)
where:
Z = the total instantaneous mortality rate
M = natural (nonfishing) instantaneous mortality rate
F = fishing instantaneous mortality rate
and
S=e.(-z}. (Equations)
where:
S = the survival rate as a fraction
Al-4 Methods for Evaluating I&E
The methods used to express I&E losses in units suitable for economic valuation are outlined in Figure Al-1 and
described in detail in the following sections.
Al-4.1 Modeling Age-1 Equivalents
The Equivalent Adult Model (EAM) is a method for expressing I&E losses as an equivalent number of
individuals at some other life stage, referred to as the age of equivalency (Horst, 1975; Goodyear, 1978; Dixon,
1999). The age of equivalency can be any life stage of interest. The method provides a convenient means of
converting losses offish eggs and larvae into units of individual fish and provides a standard metric for
comparing losses among species, years, and regions. For the Regional Benefits Assessment, EPA expressed I&E
losses at all life stages as an equivalent number of age-1 year individuals.
The EAM calculation for each species requires life-stage-specific I&E counts and life-stage-specific mortality
rates from the life stage of I&E to the life stage of equivalence (age 1 year, for this assessment). The cumulative
survival rate from age at impingement or entrainment until age 1 is the product of all stage-specific survival rates
to age 1. For impinged fish that are older than age 1, age-1 equivalents are calculated by modifying the basic
calculation to inflate the loss rates in inverse proportion to survival rates. In the case of entrainment, the basic
calculation is:
Al-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter Al
*7max (Equation 4)
where:
S.ji- = cumulative survival from stage j until age 1
X .,, = 2 V-~lo8(1+5j° = adjusted S,..
/•max = the stage immediately prior to age 1
S...j.. = survival fraction from stage /' to stage /' + 1
Equation 4 defines S..^.., which is the expected cumulative survival rate (as a fraction) from the stage at which
entrainment occurs,/, through age 1. The components of Equation 4 represent survival rates during the different
life stages between life stage/, when a fish is entrained, and age 1. Survival through the stage at which
entrainment occurs,/, is treated as a special case because the amount of time spent in that stage before
entrainment is unknown and therefore the known stage specific survival rate, S±, does not apply because S±
describes the survival rate through the entire length of time that a fish is in stage/'. Therefore, to find the expected
survival rate from the day that a fish was entrained until the time that it would have passed into the subsequent
stage, an adjustment to S.j. is required. The adjusted rate S*.j. describes the effective survival rate for the group of
fish entrained at stage/', considering the fact that the individual fish were entrained at various specific ages within
stage/'.
Age-1 equivalents are then calculated as:
AEl.jik = L.jik. S.j-,2- (Equation 5)
where:
AE\.jtk- = the number of age-1 equivalents killed during life stage/' in year k
L.j,k- = the number of individuals killed during life stage/' in year k
S.j-,2- = the cumulative survival rate for individuals passing from life stage/' to age 1
The total number of age-1 equivalents derived from losses at all stages in year k is then given by:
AEl = T AEl (Equation 6)
J ~ Jmin
where:
AE\-k. = the total number of age-1 equivalents derived from losses at all stages in year k
Al-4.2 Modeling Foregone Fishery Yield
Foregone fishery yield is a measure of the amount offish or shellfish (in pounds) that is not harvested because the
fish are lost to I&E. EPA estimated foregone yield using the Thompson-Bell equilibrium yield model (Ricker,
1975). The model provides a simple method for evaluating a cohort offish that enters a fishery in terms of their
fate as harvested or not-harvested individuals. EPA's application of the Thompson-Bell model assumes that I&E
losses result in a reduction in the number of harvestable adults in years after the time that individual fish are killed
by I&E and that future reductions in I&E will lead to future increases in fish harvest.
Al-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter Al
The Thompson-Bell model is based on the same general principles that are used to estimate the expected yield in
any harvested fish population (Hilborn and Walters, 1992; Quinn and Deriso, 1999). The general procedure
involves multiplying age-specific harvest rates by age-specific weights to calculate an age-specific expected yield
(in pounds). The lifetime expected yield for a cohort offish is then the sum of all age-specific expected yields,
thus:
rt = Z, Za Lj* S]a Wa (Fa /Za) (Equation 7)
where:
Y.k. = foregone yield (pounds) due to I<
L.jk. = losses of individual fish of stage j in the year k
S-ja. = cumulative survival fraction fr
W-a. = average weight (pounds) of fish at age a
F-a- = instantaneous annual fishing mortality rs
Z..a.. = instantaneous annual total mortality rs
The model assumes that:
>• the yield from a cohort offish is proportional to the number recruited;
>• annual growth, natural mortality, and fishing mortality rates are known and constant; and
>• natural mortality includes mortality due to I&E.
The assumption that fishing mortality, F, remains constant despite possible reductions in I&E is central to the
modeling approach used to estimate changes in fishery yield. This assumption implies that fishing activity and
fishing regulations will adapt to increases in fish stock in a manner that leads to harvest increases in direct
proportion to the magnitude of increases in harvestable stock.
The assumption that M and F are constant is based on EPA's assumptions that:
*• I&E losses are a relatively minor source of mortality in comparison to the total effect of all other sources
of natural mortality (e.g., predation); and
*• the scale of changes in I&E loss rates being considered will not lead to dramatically large increases in the
size of harvestable stocks.
EPA acknowledges that in some cases the importance of I&E as a source of mortality in a fishery might be large
enough that it would be unlikely that natural and fishing mortality would remain constant, but such cases are not
expected to be the norm.
As indicated in Figure Al-1, EPA partitioned its estimates of total foregone yield for each species into two
classes, foregone recreational yield and foregone commercial yield, based on the relative proportions of
recreational and commercial state-wide aggregate catch rates of that species in that region. Pounds of foregone
yield to the recreational fishery were re-expressed as numbers of individual fish based on the expected weight of
an individual harvestable fish. Chapter A3 describes the methods used to derive dollar values for foregone
commercial and recreational yields for the Regional Benefits Assessment.
Al-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A1
Figure Al-1: General Approach Used to Evaluate I&E Losses as Foregone Fishery Yield
Evaluation of
Fishery Species
Number of Fish Killed
(multiple life stages)
Estimate Age-1
Equivalency
(multiple life stages)
Report as
Common -
Loss Metric
Sum Across
Life Stages
Year Class Aggregate
Age-1 Equivalents
Not
Harvested
Direct
Use Value
Estimate Primary
Foregone Fishery
Yield
Commercial
Fraction
Total
Foregone
Yield
Determine Foregone
Commercial Harvest
as Pounds
Evaluation of Forage Species
that Contribute to Production
of Fishery Species
Estimate Foregone
Production
(multiple life stages)
>
Sum Across
Life Stages
Year Class Aggregate
Foregone Production
i
Use Methods Described
in Section A 1-4. 4 to
Estimate Secondary
Foregone Yield
Report as
- Common
Loss Metric
k Recreational
Fraction
Determine Foregone
Recreational Harvest
as Number of
Individual Fish
Monetize
Monetize
Al-8
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter Al
Al-4.3 Modeling Production Foregone
In addition to expressing I&E losses as lost age-1 equivalents (and subsequent lost yield, for harvested species),
I&E losses were also expressed as foregone production. Foregone production is the expected total amount of
future growth (expressed as pounds) of individuals that were impinged or entrained, had they not been impinged
or entrained (Rago, 1984). Production foregone estimates are used in EPA's analysis to calculate the contribution
of forage species lost to I&E to foregone fishery yield, as discussed in section Al-4.4.
Production foregone is calculated by simultaneously considering the stage-specific growth increments and
survival probabilities of individuals lost to I&E, where production includes the biomass accumulated by
individuals alive at the end of a time interval as well as the biomass of those individuals that died before the end
of the time interval. Thus, the production foregone for a specified stage, /', is calculated as:
_ ~'' -1) (Equation 8)
'~ GhzJ
where:
P-i. = expected production (pounds) for an individual during stage /
G..,.. = the instantaneous growth rate for individuals of stage /
N..t... = the number of individuals of stage /' lost to I&E (expressed as equivalent losses at
subsequent stages)
W+ = average weight (in pounds) for individuals of stage /
Z..t... = the instantaneous total mortality rate for individuals of stage /'
P.J., the production foregone for all fish lost at stage/, is calculated as:
p _fnSxp (Equation 9)
j 2-i " ji
where:
P..3-.. = the production foregone for all fish lost at stage ^
t .max. = oldest stage considered
P-T-, the total production foregone for fish lost at all stages/, is calculated as:
p (Equation 10)
J=tmm
where:
P.T ...= the total production foregone for fish lost at all stages/
t ...mm ...= youngest stage considered
Al-9
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods ChapterAl
Al-4.4 Evaluation of Forage Species Losses
I&E losses of forage species (i.e., species that are not targets of recreational or commercial fisheries) have both
immediate and future impacts because not only is existing biomass removed from the ecosystem, but also the
biomass that would have been produced in the future is no longer available as food for predators (Rago, 1984;
Summers, 1989). The Production Foregone Model described in the previous section accounts for these
consequences of I&E losses by considering the biomass that would have been transferred to other trophic levels
but for the removal of organisms by I&E (Rago, 1984; Dixon, 1999). Consideration of the future impacts of
current losses is particularly important for fish, since there can be a substantial time between loss and
replacement, depending on factors such as spawning frequency and growth rates (Rago, 1984).
To evaluate I&E losses of forage species for the purposes of the benefits analysis, EPA translated forage species
production foregone into foregone yield of harvested species that are known to be impinged and entrained using a
simple trophic transfer model. These estimates of the foregone yield of impinged and entrained harvested species
are distinct from the primary foregone yield of these species and are termed "secondary yield" or "trophic
transfer." This procedure is presented in Equations 11 and 12, and illustrated schematically in Figure Al-2.
The basic assumption behind EPA's approach to evaluating losses of forage species is that a decrease in the
production of forage species can be related to a decrease in the production of impinged and entrained harvested
(predator) species based on an estimate of trophic transfer efficiency. Thus, in general,
(Equation 11)
where:
P-h = foregone biomass production of a harvested species h (in pou
k = the trophic transfer efficiency
P-f. = foregone biomass production of a forage species/(in pou
Equation 11 is applicable to trophic transfer on a species-to-species basis where one species is strictly prey and
the other species is strictly a predator. For the section 316(b) Regional Benefits Assessment, commercially or
recreationally valuable fish were considered predators. The aggregate total secondary yield or trophic transfer is
estimated on a regional basis under the assumption that the trophic value of total foregone production among
forage species is allocated equally among all harvested species that occur in the I&E losses, thus:
Y,,=
-
H
Y.
'P>
(Equation 12)
where:
y.sec- = total secondary yield (as a generic predator species)
H = number of harvested species among regional loss estimates
7.h- = primary estimate of foregone yield for harvested species h
P-h- = estimate of foregone production for harvested species h
Al-10
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A1
Figure Al-2: Trophic Transfer Model
Forage species
I&E losses
Foregone
production (FP)
Trophic transfer
pathway
kj=0.10
FP of harvested
species
Aggregate all
trophic
transfer
Foregone
commercial
and recreational
harvest
Monetize
It is difficult to determine, on a community basis, an appropriate value of k that relates aggregate forage
production and aggregate predator production, since the actual trophic pathways are complicated. For the
purposes of its 316(b) analysis, EPA used the value of k = 0.10 based on a review of the available literature by
Pauly and Christensen (1995).
EPA would like to stress that this model of trophic transfer is a very simple and idealized representation of trophic
dynamics. The purpose of the model is to provide a national-scale approximation of foregone yield for EPA's
316(b) rulemaking. It is not intended to capture the actual details of trophic transfer in specific waterbodies
affected by I&E. It is important to recognize that, in reality, food webs and trophic transfer dynamics are much
more complex than this simple model implies, and include details that are specific to each particular aquatic
ecosystem and community of species.
Al-5 Extrapolation of I&E Rates
EPA examined I&E losses and the economic benefits of reducing these losses at the regional scale. The estimated
benefits were then aggregated across all regions to yield a national benefits estimate. These regions and the
waterbody types within each region are described in the Introduction to this Regional Benefits Assessment. Maps
showing the facilities in each region that are in scope of the section 316(b) rulemaking process for Phase III
existing facilities are provided in the introductory chapter of each regional report (Parts B-H of this document).
Al-11
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods ChapterAl
To obtain regional I&E estimates, EPA extrapolated losses observed at the facilities evaluated (facilities with
suitable records of I&E rates) to other in-scope facilities within the same region. Extrapolation of I&E rates from
these "model" facilities was necessary because not all in scope facilities within a given region have conducted
I&E studies. Model facilities included both Phase II and Phase III facilities, based on the assumption that I&E
rates at Phase II and Phase III facilities are similar after normalization by intake flow. Phase II facilities were
included to make use of the largest possible data set and to accommodate the lack of Phase III facility I&E studies
in some regions (see Table Al-1).
Table Al-1: Number of Model Facilities, by
Region and Phase of Rulemaking
Region
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
South Atlantic
II
18
4
10
4
8
30
2
Phase
III
0
2
2
0
3
13
0
I&E data were extrapolated on the basis of operational flow, in millions of gallons per day (MOD), where MOD
is the average operational flow over the period 1996-1998 as reported by facilities in response to EPA's Section
316(b) Detailed Questionnaire and Short Technical Questionnaire. Operational flow at each facility was rescaled
using factors reflecting the relative effectiveness of currently in-place technologies for reducing I&E. Thus, to
reflect entrainment technology in place at a facility:
F.fe... = G..f ( 1 -T.^.. ) (Equation 13)
where:
F-fe- = effective relative flow rate for entrainment at facility/
G-/. = mean operational flow at facility /( 10 6- gallons/day)
T-fe. = fractional effectiveness of entrainment-reducing technology at
To reflect impingement technology in place at a facility:
F.ft. = G./. (l-T-£;. ) (Equation 14)
where:
F.ft. = effective relative flow rate for impingement at facility/
G./. = mean operational flow at facility/(106-gallons/day)
T^- = fractional effectiveness of impingement-reducing technology at
facility/(0
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A1
Next, regional estimates were developed as outlined in Equations 15-18. Statistical weighting factors (from EPA's
survey of the industry) were multiplied by flow rates at each facility prior to estimating the total regional flow
rate. To scale estimates for entrainment losses:
/ eAll facilities
in region r
/ eAll model facilities
in region r
(Equation 15)
where:
S..r>
J._
scaling factor to relate total entrainment losses among model
facilities to regional total entrainment losses
statistical weighting factor for facility/
effective relative flow rate for entrainment at facility/
To scale estimates for impingement losses:
/eAll
(Equation 16)
where:
S..r> = scaling factor to relate total impingement losses among model
facilities to regional total impingement losses
J./_ = statistical weighting factor for facility/
f.fi- = effective relative flow rate for impingement at facility/
To estimate total entrainment losses for a region:
\-ir, e = or, £
where:
All modelfacilities
in region r
(Equation 17)
L..,,
S..,
L..f
estimated annual total entrainment losses at region r
scaling factor to relate total entrainment losses among model
facilities to regional total entrainment losses
estimated annual total entrainment losses at facility/
To estimate total impingement losses for a region:
L/ r, i = or,/
where:
f e All model facilities
in region r
L.r>!- ...= estimated annual total impingement losses at region r
S.r> = scaling factor to relate total impingement losses among model
facilities to regional total impingement losses
L..f:i... = estimated annual total impingement losses at facility/
(Equation 18)
Al-13
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods ChapterAl
EPA recognizes that there may be substantial among-facility variation in the actual I&E losses per MGD resulting
from a variety of facility-specific features, such as location and type of intake structure, as well as from ecological
features that affect the abundance or species composition offish in the vicinity of each facility. The accuracy of
EPA's extrapolation procedure relies heavily on the assumption that I&E rates recorded at model facilities are
representative of I&E rates at other facilities in the region. Although this assumption may not be met in some
cases, limiting the extrapolation procedure to particular regions reduces the likelihood that the model facilities are
unrepresentative.
EPA believes that this method of extrapolation makes best use of a limited amount of empirical data, and is the
only currently feasible approach for developing an estimate of national I&E and the benefits of reducing I&E.
While acknowledging that an extrapolation necessarily introduces additional uncertainty into I&E estimates, EPA
has not identified information that suggests that application of the procedure causes a systematic bias in the
regional loss estimates.
The assumption that I&E is proportional to flow is consistent with other predictive I&E studies. For example, a
key assumption of the Spawning and Nursery Area of Consequence (SNAC) model (Polgar et al., 1979) is that
entrainment is proportional to cooling water withdrawal rates. The SNAC model has been used as a screening tool
for assessing potential I&E impacts at Chesapeake Bay plants. As a first approximation, percent entrainment has
been predicted on the basis of the ratio of cooling water flow to source water flow (e.g., Goodyear, 1978). A study
of power plants on the Great Lakes (Kelso and Milburn, 1979) demonstrated an increasing relationship (on a log-
log scale) between plant "size" (electric production in MWe) and I&E. There is scatter in these relationships, not
just because there is variation in the cooling water intake for different plants having similar electric production,
but also because of the imprecision (sampling variability) inherent in the usual methods of estimating I&E. These
relationships are nonetheless strong.
Al-14
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A2
Chapter A2: Uncertainty
Introduction
This chapter discusses sources of uncertainty in
EPA's impingement and entrainment (I&E) analyses,
and presents the results of an uncertainty analysis of
the yield model used by EPA to estimate the benefits
of reducing I&E of commercial and recreational
fishery species. Section A2-1 discusses major
uncertainties in EPA's I&E assessments, section A2-
2 briefly describes Monte Carlo analysis as a tool for
quantifying uncertainty, section A2-3 provides
preliminary results of an uncertainty analysis by EPA
of winter flounder yield estimates, and section A2-4
discusses results of the uncertainty analysis.
Chapter Contents
A2-1 Types of Uncertainty A2-1
A2-1.1 Structural Uncertainty A2-1
A2-1.2 Parameter Uncertainty A2-2
A2-1.3 Uncertainties Related to
Engineering A2-4
A2-2 Monte Carlo Analysis as a Tool for
Quantifying Uncertainty A2-4
A2-3 EPA's Uncertainty Analysis of Yield
Estimates A2-4
A2-3.1 Overview of Analysis A2-4
A2-3.2 Results A2-5
A2-4 Conclusions A2-6
A2-1 Types of Uncertainty
Despite following sound scientific practice throughout, it was impossible to avoid several sources of uncertainty
that may cause EPA's I&E estimates in the regional analysis to be imprecise or to carry potential statistical bias.
Uncertainty of this nature is not unique to EPA's I&E analysis.
Uncertainty may be classified into two general types (Finkel, 1990). One type, referred to as structural
uncertainty, reflects the limits of the conceptual formulation of a model and relationships among model
parameters. The other general type is parameter uncertainty, which flows from uncertainty about any of the
specific numeric values of model parameters. The following discussion considers these two types of uncertainty
in relation to EPA's I&E analysis.
A2-1.1 Structural Uncertainty
The models used by EPA to evaluate I&E simplify a very complex process. The degree of simplification is
substantial but necessary because of the limited availability of empirical data. Table A2-1 provides examples of
some considerations that are not captured by the models used.
A2-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A2
Table A2-1: Uncertainties Associated with Model Structure
Type
Generally
simple
structure
Biological
submodels
General Treatment
in Model
Species lost to I&E treated
independently
No dynamic elements
Specific Treatment in Model
Fish species grouped into two categories: harvested or not harvested
(forage for harvested species).
Life history parameters constant (i.e., growth and survival did not vary
through time); growth and survival rates did not change in response to
possible compensatory effects.
A2-1.2 Parameter Uncertainty
Uncertainty about the numeric values of model parameters arises for two general reasons. The first source of
parameter uncertainty is imperfect precision and accuracy of I&E data reported by facilities and growth and
mortality rates obtained from the scientific literature. This results from unavoidable sampling and measurement
errors. The second major source of parameter uncertainty is the applicability of parameter estimates obtained from
I&E or life history studies conducted at other locations or under different conditions.
EPA's review of available facility impingement and entrainment studies identified a number of study design
limitations that can increase uncertainty about impingement mortality and entrainment estimates, including data
collection for only one to two years or limited to one season or for a subset of the affected species; limited
taxonomic detail (i.e., often egg and larval losses are not identified to the species level); and a general lack of
standard methods and metrics for quantifying impingement mortality and entrainment. Further, in many cases it is
likely that f the state of the waterbody itself has changed since these studies were conducted.
Table A2-2 presents some examples of parameter uncertainty. In all of these cases, increasing uncertainty about
specific parameters implies increasing uncertainty about EPA's point estimates of I&E losses. The point estimates
are biased only insofar as the input parameters are biased in aggregate (i.e., inaccuracies in multiple parameter
values that are above the "actual" values but below the "actual" values in other cases may tend to counteract). In
this context, EPA believes that parameter uncertainty will generally lead to imprecision, rather than inaccuracies,
in the final results.
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A2
Table A2-2: Parameters Included in EPA's I&E Analysis that are Subject to Uncertainty
Type Factors Examples of Uncertainties in Model
I&E monitoring
/loss rate
estimates
Sampling regimes
Extrapolation
assumptions
Species selection
Sensitivity offish to
I&E
Sampling regimes subject to numerous plant-specific details; no established
guidelines or performance standards for how to design and conduct sampling
regimes.
Extrapolation of monitoring data to annual I&E rates requires numerous
assumptions regarding diurnal/seasonal/annual cycles in fish presence and
vulnerability and various technical factors (e.g., net collection efficiency;
hydrological factors affecting I&E rates); no established guidelines or
consistency in sampling regimes.
Criteria for selection of species to evaluate not well-defined or uniform
across facilities. I&E data collected for only a subset of species, usually only
fish and shellfish.
Through-plant entrainment mortality assumed by EPA to be 100%; some
back-calculations done in cases where facilities had reported entrainment
rates that assumed <100% mortality. Impingement survival included if
presented in facility documents.
Biological/life
history
Natural mortality
rates
Growth rates
Geographic
considerations
Forage valuation
Natural mortality rates (M) difficult to estimate; model results highly
sensitive to M.
Simple exponential growth rates or simple size-at-age parameters used.
Migration patterns; I&E occurring during spawning runs or larval out-
migration; location of harvestable adults; intermingling with other stocks.
Harvested species assumed to be food limited; trophic transfer efficiency to
harvested species estimated by EPA based on general models; no
consideration of trophic transfer to species not impinged and entrained.
Stock
characteristics
Fishery yield
Harvest behavior
Stock interactions
For harvest species, used only one species-specific value for fishing
mortality rate (F) for all stages subject to harvest; used stage-specific
constants for fraction vulnerable to fishery.
No assumed dynamics among harvesters to alter fishing rates or preferences
in response to changes in stock size; recreational access assumed constant
(no changes in angler preferences or effort).
I&E losses assumed to be part of reported fishery yield rates on a statewide
basis; no consideration of possible substock harvest rates or interactions.
Ecological
System
Fish community
Spawning dynamics
Hydrology
Meteorology
Long-term trends in fish community composition or abundance not
considered (general food webs assumed to be static); used constant value for
trophic transfer efficiency; specific trophic interactions not considered.
Trophic transfer to organisms not impinged and entrained is not considered.
Sampled years assumed to be typical with respect to choice of spawning
areas and timing of migrations that could affect vulnerability to I&E
(e.g., presence of larvae in vicinity of intake structure).
Sampled years assumed to be typical with respect to flow regimes and tidal
cycles that could affect vulnerability to I&E (e.g., presence of larvae in
vicinity of CWIS).
Sampled years assumed to be typical with respect to vulnerability to I&E
(e.g., presence of larvae in vicinity of intake structure).
A2-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A2
A2-1.3 Uncertainties Related to Engineering
EPA's evaluation of I&E was also affected by uncertainty about the engineering and operating characteristics of
the study facilities. It is unlikely that plant operating characteristics (e.g., seasonal, diurnal, or intermittent
changes in intake water flow rates) were constant throughout any particular year, which therefore introduces the
possibility of bias in the loss rates reported by the facilities. EPA assumed that the facilities' loss estimates were
provided in good faith and did not include any biases or omissions that significantly modified loss estimates.
A2-2 Monte Carlo Analysis as a Tool for Quantifying Uncertainty
Stochastic simulation is among a class of statistical procedures commonly known as Monte Carlo modeling
methods. Monte Carlo methods allow investigators to quantify uncertainty in model results based on knowledge
or assumptions about the amount of uncertainty in each of the various input parameters. The Monte Carlo
approach also allows investigators to conduct sensitivity analyses to elucidate the relative contribution of the
uncertainty in each input parameter to overall uncertainty. Monte Carlo methods are particularly useful for
assessing models where analytic (i.e., purely mathematical) methods are cumbersome or otherwise unsuitable. A
thorough introduction to the statistical reasoning that underlies Monte Carlo methods, and their application in risk
assessment frameworks, is provided in an EPA document "Guiding Principles for Monte Carlo Analysis"
(U.S. EPA, 1997).
The characteristic feature of Monte Carlo methods is the generation of artificial variance through the use of
pseudorandom numbers. The solution to the model of interest is recalculated many times, each time adding
perturbations to the values of the model parameters. The types of perturbations are selected to reflect the actual
uncertainty in knowledge of those parameters. Recalculations are conducted thousands of times, and the variation
in the resulting solution is assessed and interpreted as an indicator of the aggregate uncertainty in the basic result.
A2-3 EPA's Uncertainty Analysis of Yield Estimates
A2-3.1 Overview of Analysis
As described in detail in Chapter Al of this report, EPA estimated foregone yield using the Thompson-Bell
equilibrium yield model (Ricker, 1975). The Thompson-Bell model is based on the same general principles that
are used to estimate the expected yield in any harvested fish population (Hilborn and Walters, 1992; Quinn and
Deriso, 1999). The general procedure involves multiplying age-specific weights by age-specific harvest rates to
calculate an age-specific expected yield (in pounds). The lifetime expected yield for a cohort offish is then the
sum of all age-specific expected yields.
L Sja Wa (Fa /Za }l-e-
J ik
where:
Y.k. = foregone yield (pounds) due to I&E losses in year k
L.jk. = losses of individual fish of stage j in the year k
S.ja = cumulative survival fraction from stage j to age a
W.a. = average weight (pounds) of fish at age a
F.a. = instantaneous annual fishing mortality rate for fish of age a
Z.a = instantaneous annual total mortality rate for fish of age a
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A2
Quantifying the variance in yield estimates resulting from uncertainty in the numeric values of L, S, W, F, and Z
assists in the interpretation of results, gives a sense of the precision in yield estimates, provides insight into the
sensitivity of predictions to particular parameter values, and indicates the contribution of particular parameters to
overall uncertainty.
EPA evaluated uncertainty in yield estimates for winter flounder using I&E data for a facility located on a North
Atlantic estuary. The I&E loss records and winter flounder life history parameters that were used are provided in
the Phase II docket as DCN #4-2037.
EPA developed a custom program written in the S language to conduct the Monte Carlo analysis. Wherever
possible, the simulation tool re-used the same code that was used to calculate yield for the original assessment.
Graphical displays were used to confirm the behavior of random number generation and to examine results.
Selection of input distributions for parameters of interest are a key element of any Monte Carlo analysis. In the
winter flounder test case, the parameter values were drawn from uniform distributions with a range defined as the
initial, best estimate of the parameter +/- 15%.
EPA investigated sensitivity of the model to variations in parameters by grouping the parameters into five classes:
*• natural mortality (M) at all life stages;
*• fishing mortality (F) at all life stages;
*• fraction vulnerable to fishing (V) at all life stages (i.e., age of recruitment to the fishery);
*• weight at age (W); and
*• the reported I&E loss rates (L).
The analysis consisted of repeating runs (n = 10,000 in each run) of the model wherein each of the groups of
parameters was either held constant at their best estimates or were varied stochastically according to the defined
input distributions. The relative importance of these groups of parameters was assessed by comparing the relative
amount of variation between each set of runs. Model sensitivity to individual parameters has not been examined.
A2-3.2 Results
For entrainment losses for this species, the analysis indicated that the yield model is most sensitive to uncertainty
in natural mortality rates, followed by uncertainty in the I&E loss rates themselves (Figure A2-1). Age-specific
weights were the third most important group, followed by fishing mortality and age at recruitment, which were
relatively insignificant sources of uncertainty.
A2-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A2
Figure A2-1: Results of Parameter Sensitivity Analysis of Estimates of Foregone Yield (pounds) of
Winter Flounder due to Entrainment by a Power Plant Located in a North Atlantic Estuary
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
O
O
O
O
^
Data points are plotted at the 5th percentile, 10th percentile, 25th percentile, median, 75th percentile, 90th percentile,
and 95th percentile of 10,000 independent estimates of foregone yield within each parameter set. Groups are
distinguished by uppercase letters designating which types of parameters were treated stochastically in the simulation
and lowercase letters for types of parameters fixed at their best estimates. M = natural mortality rates;
F = fishing mortality rates; V = age of recruitment to the fishery; W = weight at age; L = entrainment loss rates.
A2-4 Conclusions
This chapter includes a general discussion of uncertainty and describes a general approach that was tested by EPA
as a way to quantify uncertainty associated with the yield model described in Chapter Al. Preliminary results of
the uncertainty analysis suggest that uncertainty about natural mortality rates is a significant contributor to
aggregate uncertainty in yield estimates. Unfortunately, as noted in a review article by Vetter (1988), "True rates
of natural mortality, and their variability, are poorly known for even the great stocks of commercial fish in
temperate regions that have been subject to continuous exploitation for decades" (Vetter, 1988, p. 39). As a result,
the uncertainty in mortality parameters cannot be overcome. As Vetter (1988) noted, this is a difficulty shared by
all models offish stock dynamics. Nonetheless, through consultation with local fish biologists as well as the
scientific literature, EPA expended considerable effort to identify reasonable mortality rates and other life history
information for use in its yield analyses. These parameter values and data sources are presented in Appendix 1 of
each regional report (Parts B-H of this document).
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A3
Chapter A3: Economic Benefit Categories
and Valuation
Chapter Contents
A3-1
A3-2
A3-3
A3-4
Introduction
Changes in cooling water intake structure (CWIS)
design or operations resulting from the regulatory
analysis options for the final section 316(b) rule for
Phase III facilities were expected to reduce
impingement and entrainment (I&E) losses of fish,
shellfish, and other aquatic organisms. As a result, the
regulatory analysis options were expected to increase
the numbers of individuals present and increase local
and regional fishery populations.
The aquatic resources affected by cooling water intake
structures provide a wide range of ecosystem services.
Ecosystem services are the physical, chemical, and
biological functions performed by natural resources
and the human benefits derived from those functions,
including both ecological and human use services
(Daily, 1997; Daily et al., 1997). Scientific and public
interest in protecting ecosystem services is increasing with the recognition that these services are vulnerable to a
wide range of human activities and are difficult, if not impossible, to replace with human technologies (Meffe,
1992).
In addition to their importance in providing food and other goods of direct use to humans, the organisms lost to
I&E are critical to the continued functioning of the ecosystems of which they are a part. Fish are essential for
energy transfer in aquatic food webs, regulation of food web structure, nutrient cycling, maintenance of sediment
processes, redistribution of bottom substrates, the regulation of carbon fluxes from water to the atmosphere, and
the maintenance of aquatic biodiversity (Peterson and Lubchenco, 1997; Postel and Carpenter, 1997; Holmlund
and Hammer, 1999; Wilson and Carpenter, 1999). Examples of the impact of I&E on ecological and public
services include:
A3-5
A3-6
A3-7
Economic Benefit Categories Applicable
to the Regulatory Analysis Options for
Phase III Facilities A3-2
Direct Use Benefits A3-5
Indirect Use Benefits A3-7
Non-Use Benefits A3-7
A3-4.1 Role of Non-Use Benefits in
the Benefits Analysis for the
Regulatory Analysis Options for
Phase III Facilities A3-8
Summary of Benefit Categories A3 -9
Causality: Linking the Regulatory
Analysis Options for Phase III Existing
Facilities to Beneficial Outcomes A3-11
Conclusions A3 -12
decreased numbers of ecological keystone, rare, or sensitive species;
decreased numbers of popular species that are not fished, perhaps because the fishery is closed;
decreased numbers of special status (e.g., threatened or endangered) species;
increased numbers of exotic or disruptive species that compete well in the absence of species lost to I&E;
disruption of ecological niches and ecological strategies used by aquatic species;
disruption of organic carbon and nutrient transfer through the food web;
disruption of energy transfer through the food web;
decreased local biodiversity;
disruption of predator-prey relationships;
disruption of age class structures of species;
disruption of natural succession processes;
disruption of public uses other than fishing, such as diving, boating, and nature viewing; and
disruption of public satisfaction with a healthy ecosystem.
A3-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A3
Many of these services can only be maintained by the continued presence of all life stages offish and other
aquatic species in their natural habitats.
The traditional approach of EPA and other natural resource agencies to quantifying the environmental benefits of
regulations has focused on active use values, particularly direct use values such as recreational or commercial
fishing. Nonconsumptive uses (such as the importance offish for aquatic food webs), and passive use or non-use
values (including the value of protecting a resource for its own sake), are seldom separately quantified because
they are difficult to monetize with available economic methods. However, even though economists debate
methods for indirect and non-use valuation, there is general agreement that these values exist and can be
important (Freeman, 2003). When valuations that include both use and non-use components, such as Carson and
Mitchell (1993), and Mitchell and Carson (1981, 1986, and 1989) are used, non-use values are incorporated into
the analysis, although they cannot be separated from use values.
This chapter first identifies the types of economic benefits that are likely to be generated by improved ecosystem
functioning resulting from the regulatory analysis options for Phase III facilities. Then, the chapter presents the
basic economic concepts regarding economic benefits, including benefit categories and benefit taxonomies
associated with market and nonmarket goods and services that are likely to flow from reduced I&E. Other
chapters in this section of the report detail the methods used to estimate values for reductions in I&E. These
methods are in turn applied in the regional studies described in Parts B through H of this document.
A3-1 Economic Benefit Categories Applicable to the Regulatory Analysis Options for
Phase III Facilities
The term "economic benefits" for our purposes refers to the dollar value associated with all of the expected
positive impacts of the regulatory analysis options for Phase III facilities. The basic approach for estimating the
benefits of a policy event is to evaluate changes in social welfare realized by consumers and producers. Such
measures are based on standardized and widely accepted concepts within applied welfare economics. They reflect
the degree of well-being derived by economic agents (e.g., people and/or firms) given different levels of goods
and services, including those associated with environmental quality. For market goods, analysts typically use
money-denominated measures of consumer and producer surplus, which provide an approximation of exact
welfare effects (Freeman, 2003)..1. For nonmarket goods, such as aquatic habitat, values must be assessed using
nonmarket valuation methods. In such cases, valuation estimates are typically restricted to effects on individual
households (or consumers), and either represent consumer surplus or analogous exact Hicksian welfare measures
(e.g., compensating surplus). The choice of welfare (i.e., value) measures is often determined by the valuation
context.
Estimating economic benefits of reducing I&E at existing CWIS can be challenging. Many steps are needed to
analyze the link between reductions in I&E and improvements in human welfare. The changes produced by the
new regulations on fisheries and other aspects of relevant aquatic ecosystems must be determined, and then linked
in a meaningful way to the associated environmental goods and services that ultimately produce increased
benefits. Key challenges in environmental benefits assessment include uncertainties, data availability, and the fact
that many of the goods and services beneficially affected by CWIS are not traded in the marketplace
(i.e., monetary values can not be established based on observed market transactions for some of the important
beneficial outcomes). In this case, several types of benefits need to be estimated using nonmarket valuation
techniques. Where this cannot be done in a reliable manner, the benefits must be described and considered
qualitatively.
1 Technically, consumer surplus reflects the difference between the "value" an individual places on a good or
service (as reflected by the individual's "willingness-to-pay" (WTP) for that unit of the good or service) and the "cost"
incurred by that individual to acquire it (as reflected by the "price" of a commodity or service, if it is provided in the
marketplace). See Chapter A4 for a more detailed discussion of consumer and producer surplus.
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A3
For the regulatory analysis options for Phase III facilities, the benefits are likely to consist of several categories;
some are linked to direct use of market goods and services, and others pertain to nonmarket goods and services.
Figure A3-1 outlines the most prominent categories of benefits that could be expected from the rule.
Figure A3-1: Benefits Categories for the
Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities
Market
§
3
1
6
(b)
Nonmarket
Non-Use
Vicarious Consumption
BENEFIT VALUES
I Recreational
\Fisheries
Nonmarket
Direct Use
Food Chain
Support j
Nonmarket
Indirect Use EIO,^ ""nJ"
Pr°d
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A3
Non-use benefits, often referred to as passive use benefits, arise when individuals value improved environmental
quality apart from any past, present, or anticipated future use of the resource in question. Such passive use values
have been categorized in several ways in the economic literature, typically embracing the concepts of existence,
altruism, and bequest motives. Existence value is the value that individuals may hold for simply knowing that a
particular good exists regardless of its present or expected use.2 This motive applies not only to protecting
endangered and threatened species (i.e., avoiding an irreversible impact), but also applies (though perhaps the
values held may be different) for impacts that potentially are reversible or that affect relatively abundant species
and/or habitats. Bequest value occurs when someone gains utility through knowing that an amenity will be
available for others (family or future generations) now and in the future (Fisher and Raucher, 1984). Altruistic
values arise from interpersonal concerns (valuing the happiness that others get from enjoying the resource). Non-
use values also may include the concept that some ecological services are valuable apart from any human uses or
motives. Examples of these ecological services may include improved reproductive success for aquatic and
terrestrial wildlife, increased diversity of aquatic and terrestrial species, and improved conditions for recovery of
I&E species.
In older published studies, option value, which may exist regardless of actual future use, has been classified as
either non-use value, use value, or as a third type of value, apart from both the use and non-use components of
total value.3. Fisher and Raucher (1984) define option price for such an individual as "the sum of the expected
value of consumer surplus from using the resource plus an option value or risk premium that accounts for
uncertainty in demand or in supply." Mitchell and Carson (1989) argue that on theoretical grounds this risk
premium should be small for non-unique resources. It is increasingly recognized, however, that option value
"cannot be a separate component of value" (Freeman, 2003; p. 249). Accordingly, the following analysis does not
assess option value as a distinct component of value.
Although different benefit categories can be developed, it makes little difference where specific types of benefits
are classified as long as the classification system captures all of the types of beneficial outcomes that are expected
to arise from a policy action, while at the same time avoiding any possible double counting. Some valuation
approaches may capture more than one benefit category or reflect multiple types of benefits that exist in more
than one category or quadrant in the diagram. For example, reducing I&E may enhance populations of
recreational, commercial, and forage species alike. Thus, decision-makers need to be careful to account for the
mix of direct and indirect uses included in the benefits estimates, including both market and nonmarket goods and
services as well as non-use values.
2 The term "existence value" is sometimes used interchangeably with or in place of "non-use value." In this case,
where the whole of non-use benefits is represented, existence value has been described as including vicarious
consumption and stewardship values. Vicarious consumption reflects the value individuals may place on the
availability of a good or service for others to consume in the current time period, and stewardship includes inherent
value as well as bequest value. In this case inherent value may be considered the existence value individuals hold for
knowing that a good exists (described above), and bequest value is the value individuals place on preserving or
ensuring the availability of a good or service for family and others in the future.
3 Some economists consider option values to be a part of non-use values because the option value is not derived
from actual current use. Alternatively, some other writers place option value in a use category, because the option value
is associated with preserving opportunity for a future use of the resource. Both interpretations are supportable, but for
this presentation EPA places option value in the non-use category in Figure A3-1.
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A3
A3-2 Direct Use Benefits
Direct use benefits are the simplest to envision. The welfare of commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishers
is improved when fish stocks increase and their catch rates rise. This increase in stocks may result from reduced
I&E of species sought by fishers, or from reduced I&E of forage and bait fish, which leads to increases in
commercial and recreational species that prey on the forage species (see section A3-3, Indirect Use Benefits, for
the latter). For subsistence fishers, the increase in fish stocks may reduce the amount of time spent fishing for
their meals or increase the number of meals they are able to catch. For recreational anglers, more fish and higher
catch rates may increase the enjoyment of a fishing trip and may also increase the number of fishing trips taken.
For commercial fishers, larger fish stocks may lead to increased revenues through increases in total landings
and/or increases in the catch per unit of effort (i.e., lower costs per fish caught). Increases in catch may also lead
to growth in related commercial enterprises, such as commercial fish cleaning/filleting, commercial fish markets,
recreational charter fishing, and fishing equipment sales.4
There is ample evidence that the use value of fishery resources is considerable. For example, in 2001, over
34 million recreational anglers spent nearly $35.6 billion on equipment and fishing trip related expenditures
(U.S. DOI, 2002), and the 1996 GDP from fishing, forestry, and agricultural services (not including farms) was
about $39 billion (BEA, 1998). Americans spent an estimated 557 million days engaged in recreational fishing in
2001, an increase of 9% over the 1991 levels (U.S. DOI, 1993, 2002). If the average consumer surplus per angling
day were only $20 — a conservative figure relative to the values derived by economic researchers over the years
(Walsh et al., 1990)5. — then the national level of consumer surplus based on these 1996 levels of recreational
angling would be approximately $12.6 billion per year (and probably is appreciably higher).
However, these baseline values do not provide a sense of how benefits change with improvements in
environmental quality, such as those due to reduced I&E and increased fish stocks. If the improvement resulted in
an aggregate increase of 1.0% in recreational angling consumer surplus, it would translate into potential
recreational angling benefits of approximately $100 million per year or more, based on the limited metrics in the
previous paragraph.
Methodologies for estimating use values for recreational and commercial species are well developed, and some of
the species affected by I&E losses have been extensively studied. As a result, estimation of associated use values
is often considered to be straightforward.
The following bullets discuss techniques of estimating direct use value for I&E losses of harvested fish.
»J» Commercial fisheries
The social benefits derived from increased landings by commercial fishers can be valued by examining the
markets through which the landed fish are sold. The first step of the analysis involves a fishery-based assessment
of I&E-related changes in commercial landings (pounds of commercial species as sold dockside by commercial
harvesters). The changes in landings are then valued according to market data from relevant fish markets (dollars
per pound) to derive an estimate of the change in gross revenues to commercial fishers. The final steps entail
converting the I&E-related changes in gross revenues into estimates of social benefits. These social benefits
consist of the sum of the producers' and consumers' surpluses that are derived as the changes in commercial
4 Increased revenues are often realized by commercial ventures whose businesses are stimulated by environmental
improvements. These revenue increases do not necessarily reflect gains in national level "economic welfare" and,
therefore, are not usually included in a national benefit-cost analysis. However, these positive economic impacts may
be sizable and of significance to local or regional economies — and also of national importance — in times when the
economy is not operating at full capacity (i.e., when the economic impacts reflect real gains and not transfers of activity
across regions or sectors).
5 Walsh et al. (1990) review 20 years of research and derive an average value of over $30 per day for warm water
angling, and higher values for cold water and saltwater angling.
A3-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A3
landings work their way through the multi-market commercial fishery sector. Each step of this analysis is
described in detail in Chapter A4.
»t» Recreational fisheries
The benefits of recreational use cannot be tracked in the market, since much of the recreational activity associated
with fisheries occurs as nonmarket events. However, a variety of nonmarket valuation methods exist for
estimating use value, including both "revealed" and "stated" preference methods (Freeman, 2003). Where
appropriate data are available or may be collected, revealed preference methods may represent a preferred set of
methods for estimating use values. These methods use observed behavior to infer users' value for environmental
goods and services. Examples of revealed preference methods include travel cost, hedonic pricing, and random
utility models. Compared to non-use values, use values are often considered relatively easy to estimate, due to
their relationship to observable behavior, the variety of revealed preference methods available, and public
familiarity with the recreational services provided by surface waterbodies.
To evaluate recreational benefits of the regulatory analysis options for section 316(b) Phase III facilities, EPA
developed a benefit transfer approach based on a meta-analysis of recreational fishing valuation studies. The
analysis was designed to measure the various factors that determine willingness-to-pay (WTP) for catching an
additional fish per trip. The estimated meta-model allows calculation of the marginal value per fish for different
species, based on resource and policy context characteristics.
Benefit transfer is a secondary research method applied when data and other constraints limit the feasibility of
doing site-specific primary research. Although primary research methods are generally considered to be superior
to benefit transfer methods, benefit transfer is often a second-best (or only) alternative to original studies.
Additional details on the benefit transfer method EPA used in the recreational fishing benefits analysis can be
found in Chapter A5, "Recreational Fishing Benefits Methodology."
To validate the meta-analysis results, EPA also used regional random utility models (RUM) of recreational
fishing behavior developed for the Phase II analysis to estimate welfare gain to recreational anglers from
improved recreational opportunities resulting from reduced I&E offish species. The models' main assumption is
that anglers will get greater satisfaction, and thus greater economic value, from sites where the catch rate is higher
due to reduced I&E, all else being equal. This method has been applied frequently to value recreational fisheries
and is thought to be quite reliable because it is based on people's demand for nonmarket goods and services
through observable behavior. The RUM approach has been applied to the four coastal regions and the Great Lakes
region, but was unavailable for the Inland region because of the lack of data on Inland site characteristics,
including baseline catch rates and presence of boat ramps and other recreational amenities. Chapter Al 1 of the
Phase II Regional Analysis document provides more detailed discussion of the methodology used in EPA's RUM
analysis (U.S. EPA, 2004e).
Results of the RUM models and comparison of the RUM results with the meta-analysis results are presented in
Chapters B4 through H4 of the Regional Analysis Document for the proposed section 316(b) regulation for Phase
III facilities (U.S. EPA, 2004f). In general, the RUM-based results fall within the range of values estimated based
on the meta-model. The fact that the values from the two independent analyses are relatively close supports the
use of meta-analysis in estimating the value of resource changes in the context of today's final action.
For the regulatory analysis options considered for the final section 316(b) regulation for Phase existing III
facilities, EPA relied only on benefit transfer based on a meta-analysis of recreational fishing valuation studies, as
described in Chapter A5. The Agency deemed the use of the proposal RUM models (see EPA-821-R-01-017) in
the analysis of the final rule unnecessary for the following reasons: (1) the RUM-based results fall within the
range of values estimated based on the meta-model; (2) the use of RUM models is more resource intensive since it
requires additional analytic steps; and (3) no RUM models were available for the Inland region.
A3-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A3
»t» Avoiding double-counting of direct use benefits
Many of the fish species affected by I&E at CWIS sites are harvested both recreationally and commercially. To
avoid double-counting the economic impacts of I&E of these species, the Agency determined the proportions of
total species landings attributable to recreational and commercial fishing, and applied these proportions to the
total number of affected fish.
»t» Subsistence anglers
Subsistence use of fishery resources can be an important issue in areas where socioeconomic conditions (e.g., the
number of low income households) or the mix of ethnic backgrounds make such angling economically or
culturally important to a component of the community. In cases of Native American use of affected fisheries, the
value of an improvement can sometimes be inferred from settlements in legal cases (e.g., compensation
agreements between affected Tribes and various government or other institutions in cases of resource acquisitions
or resource use restrictions). For more general populations, the value of improved subsistence fisheries may be
estimated from the costs saved in acquiring alternative food sources (assuming the meals are replaced rather than
foregone). This method may underestimate the value of a subsistence-fishery meal to the extent that the store-
bought foods may be less preferred by some individuals than consuming a fresh-caught fish. Subsistence fishery
benefits are not included in EPA's regional analyses. Impacts on subsistence anglers may constitute an important
environmental justice consideration, leading to underestimation of the total benefits of the regulatory analysis
options.
A3-3 Indirect Use Benefits
Indirect use benefits refer to welfare improvements that arise for those individuals whose activities are enhanced
as an indirect consequence of fishery or habitat improvements generated by the regulatory analysis options for
Phase III existing facilities. For example, the options' positive impacts on local fisheries may generate an
improvement in the population levels and/or diversity offish-eating bird species. In turn, avid bird watchers might
obtain greater enjoyment from their outings, as they are more likely to see a wider mix or greater numbers of
birds. The increased welfare of the bird watchers is thus an indirect consequence of the regulatory analysis
options' initial impact on fish.
Another example of potential indirect benefits concerns forage species. An improvement in the population of a
forage fish species may not be of any direct consequence to recreational or commercial anglers. However, the
increased presence of forage fish will have an indirect affect on commercial and recreational fishing values if it
increases food supplies for commercial and recreational predatory species. Thus, direct improvements in forage
species populations can result in a greater number (and/or greater individual size) of those fish that are targeted by
recreational or commercial anglers. In such an instance, the incremental increase in recreational and commercial
fishery benefits would be an indirect consequence of the regulatory analysis options' effect on forage fish
populations.
A3-4 Non-Use Benefits
In contrast to direct use values, non-use values are often considered more difficult to estimate. Stated preference
methods, or benefit transfer based on stated preference studies, are the generally accepted techniques for
estimating these values (U.S. EPA, 2000a; U.S. OMB, 2003). Stated preference methods rely on carefully
designed surveys, which either (1) ask people about their WTP for particular ecological improvements, such as
increased protection of aquatic species or habitats with particular attributes, or (2) ask people to choose between
competing hypothetical "packages" of ecological improvements and household cost. In either case, values are
estimated by statistical analysis of survey responses.
A3-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A3
Non-use values may be more difficult to assess than use values for several reasons. First, non-use values are not
associated with easily observable behavior. Second, non-use values may be held by both users and non-users of a
resource. Because non-users may be less familiar with particular services provided by a resource, their values may
be different from the non-use values for users of the same resource. Third, the development of a defensible stated
preference survey is often a time and resource intensive process. Fourth, even carefully designed surveys may be
subject to certain biases associated with the hypothetical nature of survey responses (Mitchell and Carson, 1989).
Finally, efforts to disaggregate total WTP into its use and non-use components have proved troublesome (Carson
etal., 1999).
EPA routinely estimates changes in use values of affected resources as part of regulatory development. However,
given EPA's regulatory schedule, developing and implementing stated preference surveys to elicit total value
(i.e., non-use and use) of environmental quality changes resulting from environmental regulations is often not
feasible. An extensive body of environmental economics literature demonstrates the importance of valuing all
service losses, rather than just readily measured direct use losses. These studies typically reveal that the public
holds significant value for service flows from natural resources well beyond those associated with direct uses
(Fisher and Raucher, 1984; Brown, 1993; Boyd et al., 2001; Fischman, 2001; Heal et al., 2001; Herman et al,
2001; Ruhl and Gregg, 2001; Salzman et al., 2001; Wainger et al., 2001).
Studies have documented public values for the non-use services provided by a variety of natural resources
potentially affected by environmental impacts, including fish and wildlife (Stevens et al., 1991; Loomis et al.,
2000); wetlands (Woodward and Wui, 2001); wilderness (Walsh et al., 1984); critical habitat for threatened and
endangered (T&E) species (Whitehead and Blomquist, 1991; Hagen et al., 1992; Loomis and Ekstrand, 1997);
overuse of groundwater (Feinerman and Knapp, 1983); hurricane impacts on wetlands (Farber, 1987); global
climate change on forests (Layton and Brown, 1998); bacterial impacts on coastal ponds (Kaoru, 1993); oil
impacts on surface water (Cohen, 1986); toxic substance impacts on wetlands (Hanemann et al., 1991); shoreline
quality (Grigalunas et al., 1988); and beaches, shorebirds, and marine mammals (Rowe et al., 1992).
Reducing I&E losses offish and shellfish may result in both use and non-use benefits. Of the organisms that are
anticipated to be protected by the regulatory analysis options for the section 316(b) regulation for Phase III
facilities, approximately 2.6% will eventually be harvested by commercial and recreational fishers and therefore
can be valued with direct use valuation techniques. Unharvested fish, which have no direct use value, represent
97.4% of the total loss. These unlanded fish include forage fish and the unlanded portion of the stock of harvested
species. Because unlanded fish contribute to the yield of harvested fish, they have an indirect use value that is
captured by the direct use value of the fish that are caught. However, this indirect use value represents only a
portion of the total value of unlanded fish. Society may value both landed and unlanded fish for reasons unrelated
to their use value. Such non-use values include the value that people may hold simply for knowing these fish
exist. EPA believes it is important to consider non-use values. See memorandum entitled "Development of
Willingness to Pay Survey Instrument for Section 316(b) Phase III Cooling Water Intake Structures" (Abt
Associates, 2006) for more information on efforts to quantify non-use values.
To assess public policy significance or importance of the ecological gains from the regulatory analysis options for
Phase III facilities, EPA considered non-use benefits of the options qualitatively. Chapter A6 provides a
qualitative assessment of non-use benefits stemming from the regulatory analysis options. Approaches to valuing
I&E impacts on special status species are examined in Chapter A9.
A3-4.1 Role of Non-Use Benefits in the Benefits Analysis for the Regulatory Analysis Options for Phase III
Facilities
Accounting for non-use values in the Phase III benefits analysis is important because the portion of I&E losses
consisting of organisms that may be valued through measuring direct human use value () represent only portion of
the organisms impinged and entrained by CWIS. Unlanded fish include forage fish and the unlanded portion of
the stock of harvested species. The value to the public of unlanded fish has two sources: (1) their indirect use as
both food and breeding population for fish that are harvested; and (2) their non-use value, the value that people
may hold simply for knowing these fish exist, stemming from a sense of altruism, stewardship, bequest, or
A3-8
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A3
vicarious consumption, as indicated by the willingness of individuals to pay for protecting these fish or increasing
their numbers. The indirect use value of forage fish is estimated by translating foregone production among forage
species into foregone production among harvested fish.6. While non-use values are difficult to quantify, EPA
believes it is important to consider such values, particularly since 97.4% of impinged and entrained organisms
have no direct use value.
As EPA attempted, but was unable, to monetize the non-use benefits associated with unlanded fish, EPA has
ascribed these non-use benefits qualitatively. Table A3-1 provides detailed information on the number and
percentage of organisms and age-1 adult equivalent losses valued by EPA in the commercial and recreational
fishing benefits analyses. As shown in the table, the percent of impinged and entrained organisms that have no
direct use value is approximately 97% under the baseline conditions. The organisms that remain unvalued in the
analysis provide many important ecological services that do not translate into direct human use. While some
ecological services of aquatic species have been studied, other ecosystems services, relationships, and
interrelationships are unknown or poorly understood. To the extent that the latter are not captured in the benefits
analyses, total benefits are underestimated.
All individuals, including both commercial and recreational fishers as well as those who do not use the resource,
may have non-zero non-use values for unlanded and forage fish.
Table A3-1: Number and Percentage of Baseline I&E Losses by Species Category
Age-1 Adult Equivalents (millions)
Commercial and Harvested Commercial and
Recreational Species Recreational Species
Region
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
National total
Source: U.S. EPA
All Species
1.71
2.31
86.42
42.12
35.77
31.54
65.11
264.99
analysis for this
Forage
Species
1.08
2.02
80.15
36.89
10.09
29.35
54.01
213.58
report.
I&E
0.63
0.29
6.27
5.22
25.68
2.19
11.11
51.4
Percentage of
Total I&E
36.84%
12.55%
7.26%
12.39%
71.79%
6.94%
17.06%
19.40%
I&E
0.09
0.03
1.05
0.98
3.76
0.43
0.66
6.99
Percentage of
Total I&E
5.38%
1.21%
1.22%
2.32%
10.51%
1.35%
1.01%
2.64%
A3-5 Summary of Benefit Categories
Table A3-2 displays the benefit categories expected to be affected by the regulatory analysis options considered
for the final section 316(b) rule for Phase III existing facilities. The table also reveals the various data needs, data
sources, and estimation approaches associated with each category. Economic benefits can be broadly defined
according to direct use and indirect use, and are further categorized according to whether or not they are traded in
the market. As indicated in Table A3-2, "direct use" and "indirect use" benefits include both "marketed" and
"nonmarketed" goods, whereas "non-use" benefits include only "nonmarketed" goods.
See Chapter Al of this report for details on this analysis.
A3-9
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A3
Table A3-2: Summary of Benefit Categories
Data Needs, Potential Data Sources, Approaches, and Analyses Completed
Potential Data
Sources/Approaches/Analyses
Completed
Benefit Category
Basic Data Needs
Direct Use, Marketed Goods
Increased commercial landings
Fishing tournaments with entry fees and
prizes
Estimated change in landings of
specific species
Estimated change in total
economic impact
Estimated change in total
economic impact
Based on facility-specific I&E
data and ecological modeling.
Market-based approach using
data on landings and the value
of landings data from the
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS).
Not estimated. Changes in
tournament participation are
expected to be negligible
because fishery yield impacts
are generally small.
Indirect Use, Market Goods
Increase in market values:
*• equipment sales, rental, and repair
*• bait and tackle sales
*• increased consumer market choices
*• increased choices in restaurant
meals
*• increased property values near the
water
*• ecotourism (charter trips, festivals,
other organized activities with fees
such as riverwalks)
Estimated change in landings of
specific species
Relationship between increased
fish/shellfish landings and
secondary markets
Local activities and participation
fees
Estimated numbers of participating
individuals
Not estimated due to data
constraints such as information
on relationship between
increase fish/shellfish yield and
secondary impacts.
Direct Use, Nonmarket Goods
Improved value of a recreational fishing
trip:
*• increased catch of
targeted/preferred species
*• increased incidental catch
Increase in recreational fishing
participation
Estimated number of affected
anglers
Value of an improvement in catch
rate
Estimated number of affected
anglers or estimate of potential
anglers
Value of an angling day
Benefit transfer.
Regional RUM analysis (to
validate benefit transfer).
Not estimated. Changes in
recreational participation are
expected to be negligible at the
regional level because fishery
yield impacts are generally
small.
A3-10
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A3
Table A3-2: Summary of Benefit Categories
Data Needs, Potential Data Sources, Approaches, and Analyses Completed
Potential Data
Sources/Approaches/Analyses
Completed
Benefit Category
Basic Data Needs
Indirect Use, Nonmarket Goods
Increase in value of boating, scuba-
diving, and near-water recreational
experience:
*• enjoying observing fish while
boating, scuba-diving, hiking, or
picnicking
*• watching aquatic birds fish or catch
aquatic invertebrates
Increase in boating, scuba-diving, and
near-water recreation participation
Estimated number of affected near-
water recreationists, divers, and
boaters
Value of boating, scuba-diving,
and near-water recreation
experience
Estimated number of affected
boating, scuba-diving, and near-
water recreationists
Value of a recreation day
Not estimated due to data
constraints such as number of
affected recreational users.
Not estimated. Changes in
recreational participation are
expected to be negligible at the
regional level because fishery
yield impacts are generally
small.
Non-use, Nonmarket Goods
Increase in non-use values:
*• existence (stewardship)
*• altruism (interpersonal concerns)
*• bequest (interpersonal and
intergenerational equity) motives
*• appreciation of the importance of
ecological services apart from
human uses or motives (e.g., eco-
services interrelationships,
reproductive success, diversity, and
improved conditions for recovery)
I&E loss estimates
Primary research using stated
preference approach
Applicable studies upon which to
conduct benefit transfer
Site-specific studies or national
stated preference surveys.
Benefit transfer of values for
preserving T&E species.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
A3-6 Causality: Linking the Regulatory Analysis Options for Phase III Existing Facilities
to Beneficial Outcomes
Understanding the anticipated economic benefits arising from changes in I&E requires understanding a series of
physical and socioeconomic relationships linking the installation of the Best Technology Available (BTA) to
changes in human behavior and values. As shown in Figure A3-2, these relationships span a broad spectrum,
including institutional relationships that define rule requirements (from policy making to field implementation),
the technical performance of BTA, the population dynamics of affected aquatic ecosystems, and the human
responses and values associated with these changes.
The first two steps shown in Figure A3-2 reflect the institutional aspects of implementing the section 316(b) rule
for Phase III facilities. In step 3, the anticipated applications of BTA (or a range of BTA options) is determined
for the regulated entities. This technology provides the basis for estimating the cost of compliance and the initial
physical impacts of the rule (step 4). Hence, the analysis must predict how implementation of BTAs (as predicted
in step 3) translates into changes in I&E at a regulated CWIS (step 4). These changes in I&E then serve as inputs
for the ecosystem modeling (step 5).
A3-11
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A3
Figure A3-2: Causal Linkages in the Benefits Analysis
Causal Linkages Steps in Benefits Analysis
1. EPA Publication of Rule
2. Implementation through NPDES
Permit Process
Determine BTA Options
and Environmental Impact
3. Changes in Cooling Water Intake
Practices and/or Technologies
(implementation of BTA)
Present Environmental Impact
of the Implemented BTA
4. Reductions in Impingement and
Entrainment
Assessment of Environmental
Impacts of Reduced I&E
5. Change in Aquatic Ecosystem
(e.g., increased fish abundance
and diversity)
6. Change in level of Demand for Aquatic
Ecosystem Services (e.g., recreational,
commercial, and other benefits categories)
Quantification
(e.g., participation modeling,
if possible)
7. Change in Economic Values
(monetized changes in welfare)
Willingness-to-Pay
Estimation, if Possible
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
In moving from step 4 to step 5, the ecosystem models are used to assess the changes in the aquatic ecosystem
from the pre-regulatory baseline (e.g., losses of aquatic organisms before rule implementation) to the post-
regulatory conditions (e.g., losses after rule implementation). The potential output from these steps includes
estimates of reductions in I&E rates, and changes in the abundance and diversity of aquatic organisms of
commercial, recreational, ecological, or cultural value, including T&E species.
In step 6, the analysis involves estimating how the changes in the aquatic ecosystem (estimated in step 5) translate
into changes in the level of demand for goods and services. For example, the analysis needs to establish links
between improved fishery abundance, potential increases in catch rates, and enhanced participation. Then, in
step 7, economic values(for example, the value of the increased enjoyment realized by recreational anglers) are
estimated. These last two steps are the focal points of the economic benefits portion of the analysis.
A3-7 Conclusions
The general methods described here are applied in the regional studies, which are reported in Parts B through H of
this document. The regional analyses may apply variations of these general methodologies to better reflect site-
specific circumstances or data availability.
A3-12
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A4
Chapter A4: Methods for Estimating
Commercial Fishing Benefits
Introduction
Commercial fisheries can be adversely impacted
by impingement and entrainment (I&E) and many
other stressors. Because commercially landed fish
are exchanged in markets with observable prices
and quantities, estimating the economic value of
losses due to I&E (or the economic value of the
benefits of reducing I&E) may appear relatively
straightforward. However, many complicating
conceptual and empirical issues pose significant
challenges to estimating the change in economic
surplus from changes in the number of
commercially targeted fish.
This chapter provides an overview of these issues,
and indicates how EPA estimated the change in
commercial fisheries-related economic surplus
associated with the regulatory analysis options for
the section 316(b) regulation. The chapter
includes a review of the concept of economic
surplus, and describes economic theory and
empirical evidence regarding the relationship
between readily observable dockside prices and
quantities and the economic welfare measures of
producer and consumer surplus that are suitable
for a benefit-cost assessment.
This chapter also provides an overview of the
commercial fishery sector, including an
assessment of several relevant fishery stocks and
their management, trends and patterns in the
commercial fishing industry, and issues of
commercial fisheries management and how they
affect the analysis of economic welfare measures.
A4-1 Overview of the Commercial
Fisheries Sector
Decreased I&E is expected to increase the
number of fish available for harvest. The market
and welfare impacts of a change in commercial
fishery harvests can be traced through a series of
economic agents — individuals and businesses —
linked through a series of "tiered markets."
Chapter Contents
A4-1 Overview of the Commercial Fisheries Sector.... A4-1
A4-1.1 Commercial Fishers A4-2
A4-1.2 Processors, Wholesalers, and Other
Middlemen A4-2
A4-1.3 Final Consumers A4-2
A4-2 The Role of Fishing Regulations and Regulatory
Participants A4-2
A4-3 Overview of U.S. Commercial Fisheries A4-4
A4-4 Prices, Quantities, Gross Revenue, and
Economic Surplus A4-5
A4-4.1 Accuracy of Price and Quantity Data.... A4-5
A4-4.2 The Impact of Potential Price Effects.... A4-6
A4-4.3 Key Concepts Applicable to the
Analysis of Revenues and Surplus A4-7
A4-4.4 Estimating Changes in Price
(as applicable) A4-9
A4-5 Economic Surplus A4-10
A4-5.1 Consumer Surplus A4-10
A4-5.2 Producer Surplus A4-11
A4-6 Surplus Estimation When There is No
Anticipated Change in Price A4-12
A4-6.1 Producer Surplus as a Percentage of
Gross Revenues: Assuming No Change
in Prices A4-13
A4-6.2 Unregulated Fisheries A4-13
A4-6.3 Regulated Fisheries A4-13
A4-6.4 Conclusions on Surplus When No
Change in Price is Anticipated A4-14
A4-7 Surplus Estimation Under Scenarios in
Which Price May Change A4-14
A4-7.1 Neoclassical Economic Perspective on
the Market and Economic Welfare A4-15
A4-7.2 Issues in Estimating Changes
in Welfare A4-15
A4-8 Estimating Post-Harvest Economic
Surplus in Tiered Markets A4-17
A4-9 Nonmonetary Benefits of Commercial Fishing. A4-18
A4-10 Estimating Producer Surplus A4-19
A4-10.1 Introduction A4-19
A4-10.2Methodology A4-19
A4-10.3 Region-Specific Estimates of Net
Benefits Ratios A4-21
A4-11 Methods Used to Estimate Commercial Fishery
Benefits from Reduced I&E; Summary A4-27
A4-12 Limitations and Uncertainties A4-28
A4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
Commercial fishers, the individuals engaged in harvesting fish, typically haul their catch to established dockside
wholesale markets, where they sell their catch to processors or wholesalers. Processors package or can the fish,
then sell them as food products for people, as pet and animal feed, or as oils and meals for various other uses.
Wholesalers often resell fish to retailers (e.g., grocery stores), restaurants, or final consumers (households).
Through these economic relationships between various levels of buyers and sellers, the final value of the fish or
fish product creates economic signals (e.g., prices) that return through the various intermediate parties to the
fishers. Additionally, beneficial changes in the commercial fishery may encourage fishers to purchase more
variable inputs such as fishing gear, fuel, and vessel repairs as well as fixed inputs such as fishing boats. Additional
expenditures would benefit the suppliers of these goods and services. However, such purchases from input
suppliers would not typically be estimated as part of benefits, because they are transfers and transfers are excluded
because they have zero net effect to society as a whole.
A4-1.1 Commercial Fishers
Commercial fishers include the individuals supplying the labor and/or capital (e.g., fishing vessels) to harvesting
fish. These fishers typically haul their catch to established dockside wholesale markets, where they sell their catch
to processors or wholesalers. The transactions between the fishers and these intermediate buyers provide
observable market quantities and prices of dockside landings, and it is these data that serve as a starting point for
estimating changes in economic surplus.
Commercial fishing is often a demanding and risky occupation. However, commercial anglers often find great
satisfaction in their jobs and lifestyles. Additional details on the economic and non-economic aspects of
commercial fishing are provided in several of the sections that follow, including a discussion of the non-monetary
benefits of commercial fishing.
A4-1.2 Processors, Wholesalers, and Other Middlemen
Dockside transactions typically involve buyers for whom the fish are an input to their production or economic
activity. For example, processors convert raw fish into various types of final or intermediate products, which they
then sell to other entities (e.g., retailers of canned or frozen fish products, or commercial or industrial entities that
rely on fish oil as a production input). Wholesalers may serve as middlemen between the fishers and retail vendors
(e.g., supermarkets) or those who use fish as production inputs. Depending on the market and the type offish, there
may be numerous intermediaries between the commercial fishers and the final consumers who eat or otherwise use
the fish or fish products.
A4-1.3 Final Consumers
After passing through perhaps several intermediate buyers and sellers, the fish (or fish products) ultimately end up
with a final consumer (typically a household). This final consumption may take the form of a fish dinner prepared
at home or purchased in a restaurant. Final consumption may also be in the form of food products served to
household pets, or as part of a nonfood product that relies on fish parts or oils as an input to production.
A4-2 The Role of Fishing Regulations and Regulatory Participants
Transactions in the fishery sector are often affected by various levels of fishery management regulations. Nearshore
fishing (ocean and estuary fishing less than 3 miles from shore) and Great Lakes fishing are primarily regulated by
State, Interstate, and Tribal entities. The content and relative stringency of State laws affecting ocean fishing vary
from state to state.
The regulated nature of many fisheries affects the manner in which the impacts and economic benefits of the
regulatory analysis options for the section 316(b) regulation should be evaluated. For example, if the affected
A4-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A4
fisheries were perfectly competitive with open access (i.e., no property rights or fishery regulations), then all
economic rents, surplus, and profits associated with the resource would be driven to zero at the margin. However,
where fisheries are regulated or in other ways depart from the neoclassical assumptions of perfectly competitive
markets, there are rents and surplus that will be affected by changes in I&E. These economic considerations are
addressed later in this chapter.
The primary Federal laws affecting commercial fishing in U.S. ocean territory are the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of 1976 and the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) of 1996 (the SFA amended
the 1976 act and renamed it the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act). The purpose of
the 1976 act was to establish a U.S. exclusive economic zone that ranges from 3 to 200 miles offshore, and to
create eight regional fishery councils to manage the living marine resources within that area. These councils
comprise "commercial and recreational fishers, marine scientists and State and Federal fisheries managers, who
combine their knowledge to prepare Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) for stocks of finfish, shellfish and
crustaceans. In developing these FMPs the Councils use the most recent scientific assessments of the ecosystems
involved with special consideration of the requirements of marine mammals, sea turtles and other protected
resources" (NMFS, 2002c). The SFA amended the law to include numerous provisions requiring science,
management, and conservation actions by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (NMFS, 2002e).
The eight fishery management councils created by the 1976 act have regulatory authority within the eight regions.
They receive technical and scientific support from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
NMFS Fisheries Science Centers, which are organized into the following regions: Alaska, Northeast, Northwest,
Southeast, and Southwest. Table A4-1 presents how the regions used for this analysis fit into the fishery
management council regions and other fishery regions defined by NMFS.
EPA
316(b)
Analysis
Region
North
Atlantic
Mid-
Atlantic
South
Atlantic
Gulf of
Mexico
Northern
California
Southern
California
Great
Lakes
Table
States
Maine, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Rhode Island
New York, New Jersey,
Delaware, Maryland,
District of Columbia,
Virginia
North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Florida
(Atlantic Coast)
Florida (Gulf Coast),
Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana, Texas
California, north of San
Luis Obispo/Santa
Barbara county border
California, south of San
Luis Obispo/Santa
Barbara county border
Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, New York
A4-1: Regional Designation of Fisheries
NMFS
Science
Northeast
Northeast
Southeast
Southeast
Southwest
Southwest
Northeast
NMFS
Marine
Recreation
Region
North
Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South
Atlantic
Gulf of
Mexico
Northern
California
Southern
California
NA
NMFS
Commercial
Region
New England
Chesapeake
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf
Pacific Coast
California
Great Lakes
Fishery
Management
Council
(FMC)
New England
Mid-Atlantic
South
Atlantic
Gulf of
Mexico
Pacific Coast
Pacific Coast
NA
Large Regions
Reported in Our
Living Oceans
(NMFS, 1999a)
Northeast
Northeast
Southeast
Southeast
Pacific Coast
Pacific Coast
NA
A4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
A4-3 Overview of U.S. Commercial Fisheries
In estimating the benefits of reducing I&E losses, it is important to understand how increased fish populations may
affect stocks in different fisheries. Where stocks are thriving, a small increase in the number of individual fish
affected by I&E may not be noticed, but where stocks are already depleted the marginal impact of a small increase
may be much more important.
Many fisheries in the United States tend to be heavily fished. In the mid-1900s, many U.S. fisheries were over-
fished, some to the point of near collapse (NMFS, 1999b, 2001a; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2002). The
situation currently is showing some gradual improvement because of recent management efforts mandated by the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and other regulations. However, many of the current restrictions on fishing have not been
in place long enough to have a dramatic impact on fisheries.
Table A4-2 shows the utilization rate of fisheries in the United States by region, based on data reported in Our
Living Oceans (NMFS, 1999b). The regions for which fish status are reported in NMFS (1999b), listed in
Table A4-2, are larger than those used in the section 316(b) Phase III regional analysis. The NMFS Northeast
region includes both the North Atlantic and the Mid-Atlantic regions as defined for EPA's analysis; the NMFS
Southeast region includes EPA's South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions; and the NMFS Pacific Coast region
includes EPA's Northern California and Southern California regions, as well as Oregon and Washington.
Table A4-2: Utilization of U.S. Ocean and Nearshore Fisheries in 1999
# Fisheries with
Our Living # Fisheries with Unknown
Ocean Regions"
Alaska
Northeast
Pacific Coast
Southeast
Western Pacific
Total
Known Status
43
55
55
34
20
207
Status
8
15
11
35
7
76
# Under-Utilized
10
4
12
2
8
36
# Fully-Utilized
33
15
37
15
9
109
# Over-Utilized
0
36
6
17
3
62
% of Total with
Known Status 17% 53% 30%
a. The Northeast region includes EPA's North Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic regions; the Pacific Coast region includes
EPA's Northern and Southern California regions, as well as Oregon and Washington; and the Southeast region
includes EPA's South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. The Alaska and Western Pacific regions are not included
in the Phase III CWIS benefit-cost analysis, but are included here for comparison.
Source: NMFS, 1999b.
Based on the NMFS definitions, a fishery is considered to be producing at a less than optimal level if its recent
average yield (RAY).1, is less than the estimated long-term potential yield (LTPY)..2. This can occur as a result of
either under-utilization of the fishery or collapse of the fish stock. These data indicate that a majority, 53%, of the
-1. RAY is measured as "reported fishery landings averaged for the most recent 3-year period of workable data,
usually 1995-1997" (NMFS, 1999b, p. 4).
2. LTPY is "the maximum long-term average catch that can be achieved from the resource. This term is analogous
to the concept of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) in fisheries science" (NMFS, 1999b, p. 5). LTPY may not be the
yield that maximizes surplus rents.
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
ocean and nearshore fisheries with known status, were fully utilized in 1999. Approximately 30% of these fisheries
are identified as over-utilized. For more than a third of the fisheries, the status is unknown.
Table A4-3 shows the overall production of U.S. fisheries by region. In total, the annual RAY has been over
12 million metric tons, with Alaska and the Western Pacific providing nearly two-thirds of the catch. Because of
under-utilization in some fisheries and over-fishing in others, the total RAY in the United States is only 60% of the
estimated LTPY.
Table A4-3: Productivity of U.S. Regional Fisheries in 1999 (million metric tons)
Our Living
Ocean
Regions"
Alaska
Northeast
Pacific Coast
Southeast
Western Pacific
Total
Total Long-Term
Potential Yield
(LTPY)
4.47
1.59
1.04
1.50
3.44
12.04
Total Current Potential Yield
(CPY)
CPY
3.52
1.35
0.85
1.15
3.44
10.32
% of LTPY
78.7%
85.2%
81.9%
76.7%
100.1%
85.7%
Total Recent Average Yield
(RAY)
RAY
2.51
0.89
0.62
1.16
2.05
7.22
%of
LTPY
56.1%
55.7%
59.7%
76.8%
59.6%
60.0%
%of
CPY
71.3%
65.4%
72.9%
100.2%
59.6%
70.0%
a The Northeast region includes EPA's North Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic regions; the Pacific Coast region includes
EPA's Northern and Southern California regions, as well as Oregon and Washington; and the Southeast region
includes EPA's South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. The Alaska and Western Pacific regions are not included
in the Phase III CWIS benefit-cost analysis, but are included here for comparison.
Source: NMFS, 1999b.
A4-4 Prices, Quantities, Gross Revenue, and Economic Surplus
Dockside landings and revenues are relatively easy to observe, and readily available from NMFS. These data can
be used to develop a rough estimate of the value of increased commercial catch. However, it is not always easy to
interpret these data properly in estimating benefits. First, there are empirical issues about whether the data
accurately reflect the full market value of the commercial catch. Second, simply applying an average price to a
change in catch does not account for a potential price response to the change in catch. Third, even if the price effect
is accounted for, change in gross revenue is not necessarily the correct conceptual or empirical basis for estimating
benefits from reduced I&E. This section addresses these key issues.
A4-4.1 Accuracy of Price and Quantity Data
The commercial landings data available from NOAA Fisheries are the most comprehensive data available at the
national and regional levels and thus EPA used these data in its estimation of commercial fishing benefits.
Nevertheless, the data may not fully capture the economic value of the commercial catch in the United States. As
with any large-scale data collection effort, there are potential limitations such as database overlap and human error.
Additional reasons the data may not fully capture the economic value of the commercial catch are varied and
include, but are not limited to, the following:
*• Fishers often receive noncash payments for their catch. Crutchfield et al. (1982) noted that "the full
amount of the payment to fishers should include the value of boat storage, financing, food, fuel, and other
non-price benefits that are often provided to fishers by processors. These are clearly part of the overall
"price," but are very difficult to measure, since they are not generally applicable to all fishers equally and
are not observed as part of dockside prices.
A4-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
>• Some fishers may sell their catch illegally. There are three main reasons why illegal transactions occur:
• To circumvent quantity restrictions (quotas) on landings allowed under fishery management rules.
• To avoid or reduce taxes by having a reported income less than true earnings.
• To reduce profit sharing, boat owners have been known to negotiate a lower price with the buyer and
then recover part of their loss "in secret" so they do not have to share the entire profit with the crew.
>• Some species are recorded inaccurately. Seafood dealers fill out the reports for commercial landings and
may mislabel a species or not specifically identify the species — for example, entering "rockfish" instead
of "blue rockfish." In this example the landings data for blue rockfish would under-estimate total
landings, while data for "other rockfish" would be over-estimated (personal communication;
D. Sutherland, NMFS, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, 11/4/2002).
>• Federal law prohibits reporting confidential data that would distinguish individual producers or otherwise
cause a competitive disadvantage. These "confidential landings" are entered as "unclassified" data
(e.g., finfishes, unc.) and do not distinguish individual species. Although most summarized landings are
not confidential, species summary data may under-report actual landings if some of those landings have
been confidential and therefore were not reported by individual species (NMFS, 2002b).
>• Landings data are combined from nine databases that overlap spatially and temporally, and although they
are carefully monitored for double-counting, some overlap may go unnoticed (NMFS, 2002b).
A4-4.2 The Impact of Potential Price Effects
A key issue in this analysis is whether the change in fishery conditions associated with the regulatory analysis
options will be sufficiently large to generate price changes in the relevant fishery markets.
If the estimated changes in commercial landings are small relative to the applicable markets, then no price change
of consequence is likely. This appears to be the case for all regions and fisheries included in this analysis. In this
case, estimating benefits is relatively simple. With no change in price, there is a fairly transparent relationship
between the change in revenues and the change in economic surplus measures that are suitable for a benefits
assessment (i.e., there is no change in consumer surplus, and the change in producer surplus may be equivalent to a
percentage of or even equal to the change in revenues). The change in revenues is straightforward to estimate
(i.e., the estimated change in quantity landed times the original price). This method is described further later in this
chapter.
If changes in landings are such that a price change is anticipated, then the conceptual and empirical analysis
becomes more complicated. As detailed in greater depth later in this chapter, a price change makes it more difficult
to estimate changes in gross revenues. In fact, the change in revenues may be either positive or negative, depending
on the relative elasticity of demand. Further, a change in price is anticipated to generate changes in both producer
and consumer surplus, and numerous complex factors must be considered in assessing these changes in welfare
(e.g., some of the gain in consumer surplus will reflect a transfer away from producer surplus, the overall change in
producer surplus may be positive or negative, and the relationship between these measures of surplus and the
estimated market revenues is much less transparent than in the case where price is reasonably constant).
As discussed later in this chapter, in all the regional analyses performed for the final rule the change in estimated
harvest is small relative to the applicable market and EPA has assumed that there would be no significant change in
price. The issues with estimating changes in revenues and surplus are then relatively straightforward. It may be the
case in future rulemakings, however, that price changes are likely to apply in some markets. Therefore, this chapter
provides additional discussion of conceptual and empirical issues that may arise when a price change scenario is
relevant.
A4-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A4
A4-4.3 Key Concepts Applicable to the Analysis of Revenues and Surplus
Before discussing the details of defining and measuring revenues and surplus, it is important to first establish
some basic economic concepts relative to markets and measures of welfare. Figure A4-1 depicts a simple market
for a typical economic good, with demand (labeled as line D) downward sloping to reflect what economists refer
to as decreasing marginal utility, and supply (line S) upward sloping to reflect increasing marginal costs.
There are numerous reasons why the market for commercial fish often differs in important ways from the typical
market depicted in the figure. Commercial fisheries are considered renewable natural resources whereby supply is
limited by ecological constraints. Fisheries' markets often deviate from the traditional neoclassical view of fully
competitive markets because of open access, the socially desirable goal of maximizing resource rents, and the
corresponding need for regulations that limit catch or prevent the entry of fishers (suppliers). It is also possible
that costs may not increase in the relevant range of changes to fishery conditions. Nonetheless, to introduce some
core concepts, we begin with the standard neoclassical depiction of a market as shown in the figure.
Figure A4-1: Market for Typical Economic Good
Price
X
-s
Q.
D = P(Q)
Quantity
An equilibrium is established where supply and demand intersect, such that Q.*. reflects the quantity of the good
exchanged and P.*. reflects the market clearing price (i.e., the price at which the quantity supplied is equal to the
quantity demanded). The gross revenue in this market (the sum total paid by consumers, which is equivalent to
payments received by sellers) is equal to P.*. multiplied by Q.*., which in the figure is depicted by the rectangle made
up of areas B plus C.
While the level of total (gross) revenues is of interest, it does not measure the total benefit (economic welfare) that
is generated by this market. This is measured by what is referred to as economic surplus (see sections A4-5.1 and
A4-5.2 for further discussion of concepts related to economic surplus). Economic surplus consists of consumer
surplus (which is depicted by area A) plus producer surplus (depicted by area B). Consumer surplus is the amount
by which willingness-to-pay (WTP), as reflected by the demand curve, exceeds the market-clearing price for each
unit exchanged, up to Q.*. (i.e., it indicates the degree by which consumers obtained the traded commodity at a price
below what the good was worth to them).
A4-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A4
Likewise, producer surplus reflects the extent to which suppliers realized revenues above and beyond the marginal
cost of producing some of the units (up to Q.*.). Beyond Q.*., there is neither additional consumer nor producer
surplus to be gained — at the margin, all the surplus has been extracted and no additional surplus will be gained by
adding more output to the market.
Now, suppose there is a change that increases the amount of a key input to production, such that the more
bountiful input is now available at a lower cost to suppliers than before. For example, an increase in the number
of locally harvestable fish makes it easier, and thus less costly, to catch a given number offish. This could result
in an outward shift in supply (a decrease in the marginal cost of producing any given quantity of the good). This is
depicted in Figure A4-2, where supply shifts from S.0 to S.i.. With the increased supply, a new market clearing
price emerges at P.I. (which is lower than the original P.*.), and the quantity exchanged increases from Q.*. to Q.I..
Figure A4-2: Increased Supply in Typical Economic Market
Price
Quantity
These changes in the quantity exchanged and the market-clearing price make it somewhat complex to envision how
(and by how much) gross revenues and economic surplus measures may change as a consequence of the shift in
supply. Using Figure A4-2 as a guide:
>• Under the original supply conditions (S.0.) consumer surplus had been area A, but it has now increased to
A + B + C + D. Therefore, consumer surplus has increased by an amount depicted by areas B + C + D.
>• Producer surplus had been area B + E before the supply shift, but becomes E + F + G after the shift in
supply. Hence the change in producer surplus is depicted as areas F + G - B.
• Note that area B is subtracted from producer surplus but added to consumer surplus — i.e., it
represents a transfer of surplus from producers to consumers when supply shifts outward and prices
decline.
• Also note that consumer surplus has increased by more than the transfer of area B from producers; the
additional consumer surplus (above and beyond the transfer) is depicted by the amount C + D.
• Finally, note that the change in producer surplus might be positive or negative, depending on whether
the addition of F + G outweighs the loss of B (assuming the supply curves are parallel).
>• The total change in economic surplus (consumer plus producer surplus) therefore equals C + D + F + G.
A4-8
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
>• Total revenue had been P.*. times Q.*. (area B + C + E + F + X), but now becomes P.I. times Q.I. (area E + F
+ X + G + Y). The change in total revenue thus becomes (G + Y) - (B + C).
• Note that the change in revenue can be positive or negative, depending on whether G + Y is greater or
less than B + C.
• Also note that if one does not know how much the price will decrease, and relies on the original price
(P.*.) to estimate the change in revenue, then the change in revenue would be over-estimated as P.*.
times (Q.i. - Q*), which is equivalent to the area G + Y + D + Z.
• If the change in revenue is estimated relying on the original price level (P.*.) when in fact the price has
changed to P.I., then the amount by which the change in revenue will be over-estimated is equal to
areaB + C + D + Z.
Even though the illustration above relies on a relatively simple depiction of a market that adheres to the basic
economic assumptions and conditions of perfect competition, it reveals how complex the analysis can become if
there is an anticipated change in price when supply is increased. The analysis can become even more complex
when deviations from the assumptions of open access perfect competition are considered.
A4-4.4 Estimating Changes in Price (as applicable)
One key observation from the illustration above is the importance of predicting the change in price, because relying
on the baseline price can lead to potential errors. Correct estimation of the change in price offish as a result of the
regulation requires two pieces of information: the expected change in the commercial catch, and the relationship
between demand for fish and the price offish. Ideally, a demand curve would be estimated for the market for each
fish species in each regional market. The level of effort required to model demand in every market is not feasible
for this analysis. However, if reasonable, empirically based assumptions can be made for the price elasticity of
demand for fish in each region, the change in price can be accurately estimated.
The price elasticity of demand for a good measures the percentage change in demand in response to a percentage
change in price. For example, if the price elasticity of demand for fish is assumed to be -2 over the relevant portion
of the demand function, then a 1% increase in price creates a 2% decrease in the quantity demanded. Essentially,
this determines the slope of the demand curve because it indicates how demand responds to a change in price. The
inverse of the price elasticity of demand can be used to estimate the change in price as a result of a change in the
quantity demanded. If the price elasticity of demand is assumed to be -2, the inverse is 1/-2 = -0.5. This would
imply that a 1% increase in demand would correspond to a 0.5% decrease in price.
For example, if in Figure A4-2 Q.*. is equal to 10,000 pounds offish per year, and reductions in I&E are expected to
add 500 pounds offish to the annual catch, then Q.I. will equal 10,500 pounds per year. This is a 5% increase in the
quantity offish supplied to the market. Based on the illustration, in response to the increase in supply, price will
decrease from P.*. to P.I.. To clear the market, the quantity demanded would increase until Qa. is also the quantity of
fish demanded. If the price elasticity of demand for fish in this market is known to be approximately -2, then the
inverse of the price elasticity of demand is -0.5 and, as described above, the expected change in price necessary to
clear the market would be 5% x -0.5 = -2.5%. If the initial price, P.*, equals $ 1.00 per pound, then P.I. will equal
$0.975 per pound, and the change in gross revenues will be (10,500 x $0.975) - (10,000 x $1.00) = $237.50. This
represents a 2.375% increase in gross revenues for commercial fishers in this market.
A variety of sources in the economics literature provide estimates of the price elasticity of demand for fish. In this
analysis, EPA has assumed that the changes in supply offish as a result of reduced I&E will not be large enough to
create a significant change in price (see discussion below describing regional results). Therefore, assumptions
about price elasticity are not necessary in this case. In future analyses, if there are markets in which the estimated
change in harvest is predicted to be large enough to generate a price change of consequence, EPA will revisit this
issue in light of information available in the literature.
A4-9
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
A4-5 Economic Surplus
Even if the change in gross revenue is measured accurately and potential price effects (if any) are accounted for,
changes in gross revenues are not generally considered to be a true measure of economic benefits. According to
broadly accepted principles of microeconomics, benefits should be expressed in terms of economic surplus to
consumers and producers.
A4-5.1 Consumer Surplus
To understand consumer surplus, consider the following illustration. Suppose a seafood lover goes to a fish
market and pays SP1, the current market price, for a pound of salmon. However, she would have been willing to
pay more than $P.l if necessary. The maximum she would have paid for the salmon is $B. The difference between
$B and $P.l represents an additional benefit to the consumer. When this benefit is summed across all consumers in
the market, it is called consumer surplus.
Figure A4-3 shows one possible representation of a market for fish. The demand curve, D(F), shows the aggregate
demand that would prevail in the market at each price level (P)..3'4 The line Q.1. is the quantity offish supplied to
the market by fishers. Equilibrium is attained a the point where D(F) equals Q.1.. Under these conditions, the price
is P.1.. In this case the total amount paid by consumers for fish is equal to P.1. x Q.1., which is equal to the area of
boxes U + V + W in the graph. The extra benefit to consumers, i.e., the consumer surplus, is equal to the area of
triangle T..5.
If the quantity offish available to the market increases from Q.1. to Q2, then the price decreases to P.2. This
changes the total amount paid by consumers to P.2 x Q2, which is equal to the area of boxes V + W + Y + Z, and
increases the consumer surplus to the area of triangle T + U + X.
3 Note that in the graph the quantities supplied, Q.1. and Q2, are assumed to be constant under a given set of
conditions. This assumption allows for a simplified case to be presented in the figure. An assumption of constant
supply is most appropriate for a short-term analysis or for an analysis of a fishery regulated via quotas. Section A4-6
offers a discussion of the case where the supply curve is upward sloping.
4 In this simplified illustration D(F) is really an inverse demand curve since it determines price as a function of
quantity, F. The distinction is not of vital importance here.
Note that Figure A4-3 is a highly simplified characterization of benefits derived from a commercial fishery,
where the goal is to maximize producer surplus and consumer surplus. Figure A4-3 is drawn from Bishop and Holt
(2003), who indicate that D(F) represents a general equilibrium demand function, accounting for markets downstream
of harvesters, and that the welfare triangle (area T in Figure A4-3) represents consumer surplus plus post-harvest rents.
Q.1. is the supply offish under a fixed, optimal quota before a regulatory analysis option for Phase III facilities and Q2 is
the supply after a regulatory analysis option for Phase III facilities takes effect. A more complete interpretation of the
graph in the context of renewable resources also reveals that costs for the harvester (e.g., fishing fleet) are equal to the
area W (for a quota equal to Q.1.) and that area U + V is equal to the rents potentially captured by the harvester at Q.1..
A4-10
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A4
Figure
>
P1
P2
C
A4-3: Conceptual Model of Benefits from an
Increase in Fish Catch
i
T*V
u !X
1 1 >v
W \ Z | XD(F)
1 " *
Q1 Q2 F
Source: Bishop and Holt (2003).
A4-5.2 Producer Surplus
In the example above, there is also a producer surplus that accrues to the fish seller. When the fish market sold the
salmon to our consumer, it sold it for SP1 because that was the market price. However, it is likely that it cost less
than SP1 to supply the salmon. If $C is the cost to supply the fish, then the market earns a profit of $P.l minus $C
per fish. This profit is akin to the economic concept of producer surplus.6.
In Figure A4-3, the line C represents a simplified representation of the cost to the producer of supplying a pound
offish.7 When the supply offish is equal to Q1, the producers sell Q.1. pounds offish at a price of P.1.. The
difference between P.1. and C is the producer surplus that accrues to producers for each pound offish..8. Total
producer surplus realized by producers is equal to (P.1. - C) x Q.1.. In the example, this producer surplus is equal to
the area of U + V. The area W is the amount that producers pay to their suppliers if the harvest equals Q.1.. In the
example presented here, W might be the amount that the fish market paid to a fishing boat for the salmon plus the
costs of operating the market.
6 Producer surplus equals economic profit minus the opportunity cost of the owner's resources invested in the
fishery enterprise (see section A4-8 for additional details).
7 In this case average cost is assumed to equal marginal cost at C and the marginal cost is assumed constant. Note
that this is a simplification used here only to assist with the discussion. For example, the regulatory analysis options for
the section 316(b) rulemaking might lead to a small decrease in cost per unit of fish caught. Also, if marginal cost were
assumed to be upward sloping, the figure would more closely resemble the familiar graph of supply and demand with
an upward-sloping supply curve, as depicted in Figure A4-2.
8 Note that economists usually assume that C includes the opportunity cost of investing and working in commercial
fishing. Thus, producer surplus is profit earned above and beyond normal profit. In a perfectly competitive market,
when economic profit is being earned, it induces more producers to join the market until producer surplus is zero.
However, many commercial fisheries are no longer allowing open access to all fishers, thus it is realistic to assume that
a level of producer surplus greater than zero is attainable in many U.S. commercial fisheries. In the case of managed
fisheries, (P.1. - C) can be referred to as rent.
A4-11
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
When supply increases to Q2, the producers sell Q2 pounds offish at a price of P.2. The total cost to produce Q2
increases from W to W + Z. The total producer surplus changes from U + V to V + Y..9
In this simple example, where cost, C, is assumed to be constant, the producer surplus earned by suppliers is equal
for all units offish harvested. If C increases as harvest increases, however, some of the producer surplus per unit
will be eaten away by increased costs. In the figure, this would be seen as a decrease in the areas of V and Y and
an increase in the areas of W and Z as a greater share of the revenues from the sale of the catch go to cover costs.
Figure A4-3 is a graphical representation of a single market. In the real world, a fishing boat captain will sell the
boat's catch to a processor, who sells processed fish to fish wholesalers, who in turn sells fish to retailers, who
may sell fish directly to a consumer, or to a restaurant that will sell fish to a consumer. There will be consumer
and producer surplus in each of these markets.10 As a result, it is conceptually inaccurate to estimate the change in
the quantity offish harvested, multiply by the price per pound, and call this change in gross revenue the total
benefits of the regulation.
The sections of this chapter that follow detail methods used in the analysis of commercial fishing benefits
attributable to the regulatory analysis options considered for the final section 316(b) rule for Phase III existing
facilities. This involves three basic steps: estimating the increase in pounds of commercial catch under the
regulatory analysis options, estimating the gross value of the increased catch, and estimating the increase in
producer surplus as a proportion of increased gross value. If the regulatory analysis options were expected to have a
greater impact on markets, an additional step would be estimating the increase in consumer surplus across all
affected markets as a proportion of increased gross value. However, as detailed above, EPA has assumed that the
changes in supply offish as a result of reduced I&E will not be large enough to create a significant change in price.
In addition:
>• A considerable proportion of the commercial catch is exported, and thus does not benefit
domestic/regional consumers.
* Many of the commercially traded species are traded in highly competitive markets, which include a
number of substitute species (both imported and other domestic species) so that prices to consumers are
not likely to be significantly affected by the expected marginal increase in domestic catch.
Consequently, EPA assumes consumer surplus to equal zero. Nevertheless, section A4-7 describes potential
methods in the case of a price change.
A4-6 Surplus Estimation When There is No Anticipated Change in Price
Overall, the estimated changes in landings due to the regulatory analysis options considered for the final section
316(b) rule for Phase III existing facilities are not expected to greatly influence markets for the fish. Thus, it seems
reasonable to presume that there will be no appreciable impacts on wholesale or retail fish prices. Under a scenario
where prices are not affected, economic theory indicates that the total change in economic welfare will be confined
to changes in producer surplus (i.e., changes in consumer and related post-harvest surplus will be zero). Benefits
estimation will therefore consist of measuring producer surplus, and the core empirical and conceptual issue
9 Note that the producer surplus may be smaller at quantity Q2 than at Q.1, depending on whether U is bigger than
Y. The relative sizes of U and Y depend on the slope of D(F). When the D(F) curve is less steep, i.e., when demand is
more price elastic, Y will be larger compared to U. When the D(F) curve is steeper, i.e., when demand is more price
inelastic, Y will be smaller compared to U. Changes in producer surplus may be negative with increased harvest if
demand is sufficiently inelastic.
10 As described in section A4-8 and Bishop and Holt (2003), the total consumer surplus accumulated through tiered
markets can be estimated from a general equilibrium demand function (but not from a more typical single market
partial equilibrium demand curve).
A4-12
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A4
becomes determining the relationship between increases in gross revenues and changes in producer surplus, when
prices remain constant.
A4-6.1 Producer Surplus as a Percentage of Gross Revenues: Assuming No Change in Prices
Given the potential for increases in producer surplus for the harvest sector (including rents to harvesters) under
conditions where fish prices do not change, EPA has estimated producer surplus as a constant fraction of the
change in gross revenue. There are at least two relevant cases to consider: the case of unregulated fisheries, and the
case of fisheries that are regulated with quotas or restrictive permits.
A4-6.2 Unregulated Fisheries
In an unregulated fishery, a reduction in I&E that leads to an increase in the stock of fish will decrease the marginal
cost of catching more fish. This makes it possible for fishers to earn economic rents, and for producer surplus to
increase. According to basic microeconomic principles, in a competitive market economic rents will attract
additional fishing effort in one of two ways: either existing fishers will exert greater effort or new fishers will enter
the market (or both). In either case, fishing effort theoretically will increase until a new equilibrium is reached
where economic rents are equal to zero. In this case, there may be economic benefits to commercial fishers in the
short term, but in the long run producer surplus will be zero. Thus, in an unregulated fishery economic theory
suggests that the long-run change in producer surplus will be 0% of the change in gross revenues.
A4-6.3 Regulated Fisheries
Fishery regulations seek to create sustainable harvests that maximize resource rents. In a regulated fishery, reduced
I&E that increases the number of fish available to harvest, may lead to increases in harvest, if regulations are
relaxed to allow for greater harvest. In this case, unlike the open access case, there will be lasting benefits to
commercial fishers.
As an example, assume that quotas are the regulatory instrument, that quotas increase (from Q.0. to Q.I.) in response
to reduced I&E, and that the supply curve (as represented by a marginal cost curve) shifts as a result of increased
stock (from S.0. to S.i). Then, we can relate the change in producer surplus to the change in gross revenue, as
illustrated in Figure A4-4. Before the increase in stock and change in quota, producer surplus is equal to area A.
After the increase in stock and change in quota, producer surplus is equal to area (A + B + D + E). The change in
producer surplus resulting from the increased quota is therefore equal to area (B + D + E).
Price
Figure A4-4: Surplus in a Regulated Fishery Where
Price is Constant
MC
Quantity
A4-13
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
Before the increase in stock and change in quota, total revenue is equal to area (A + B + C). After the increase in
stock and change in quota, total revenue is equal to area (A + B + C + D + E + F). The change in total revenue
resulting from the increased quota is therefore equal to area (D + E + F). Therefore, the relationship between the
change in producer surplus and the change in total revenue depends on the relative magnitudes of areas B and F.
Three scenarios illustrate how the change in total revenue may over- or under-estimate the change in producer
surplus:
1. If B < F, then the change in revenue over-estimates the change in producer surplus.
2. If B = F, then the change in revenue approximates the change in producer surplus.
3. If B > F, then the change in revenue underestimates the change in producer surplus.
Note that if the first scenario prevails, then some fraction of gross revenue may be more suitable as a reliable proxy
for change in producer surplus when price is assumed constant. If the marginal cost of supplying the extra fish at
the higher quota, Qi, is minimal or close to zero, then the second or third scenarios are likely, and 100% or more of
the change in revenue may serve as a reliable proxy for the change in producer surplus.
A4-6.4 Conclusions on Surplus When No Change in Price is Anticipated
Various scenarios may arise when fishery conditions improve such that supply increases without generating a
price change of consequence. When prices do not change, there is no anticipated change in post-harvest surplus to
consumers or other post harvest entities, because a reduction in price is required to generate such changes. Hence,
under these conditions, the change in economic welfare is limited to changes in producer surplus.
As shown in the previous section, estimates of changes in dockside revenues become, under some scenarios,
equivalent to the change in producer surplus. Hence, the change in gross revenues can be used as a proxy to
estimate the change in producer surplus for the regional analyses..11- EPA also recognizes that under some of the
possible scenarios that may arise when there is a quota-governed market, the full change in revenues (as estimated
through a projected change in landings but no price change) might overstate the change in producer surplus.
However, if dockside prices and/or dockside landings (quantities) are understated — as may often be the case —
then the change in surplus will be understated in most scenarios when approximated by the estimated change in
gross revenues.
EPA's analysis of commercial fishery benefits relies on the premise that the change in producer surplus is a
fraction of the projected change in revenues. EPA estimated a species- and region-specific fraction, providing a
range of 0% to 84%. The lower estimate of 0% represents the case of an unregulated fishery, as well as is the
lower bound identified in the literature. This is described in greater detail in section A4-10.
A4-7 Surplus Estimation Under Scenarios in Which Price May Change
In the preceding section, the discussion was limited to cases in which no notable change in price was anticipated.
These scenarios appear reasonable for very small improvements in fishery conditions, which is relevant for the
regional analyses. If the estimated impacts were larger, as may be the case in other analyses, it may be
inappropriate to assume that there will be no price effects in any commercial fishery markets. This section
discusses the conceptual and empirical basis for estimating economic surplus (i.e., benefits) in instances where
price changes are more likely to arise.
.n This is consistent with EPA's guidelines (U.S. EPA, 2000a). The guidelines describe options for estimating
ecological benefits for fisheries, and note that "if changes in service flows are small, current market prices can be used
as a proxy for expected benefit... a change in the commercial fish catch might be valued using the market price for the
affected species" (p. 98).
A4-14
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
A4-7.1 Neoclassical Economic Perspective on the Market and Economic Welfare
Figure A4-2 and section A4-4.3 described the standard, neoclassical economic depiction of a market, with demand
downward sloping and supply upward sloping to reflect increasing marginal costs. There are several reasons why
this neoclassical depiction may not be directly applicable to the commercial fisheries market, as discussed later in
this chapter. But for the moment, Figure A4-2 and the related discussion provide a useful starting point for
considering how the measures of economic benefit — the sum of producer and consumer surplus — might change
due to a policy that shifts the supply curve outward from S.0. to S.i..
As noted previously, a portion of the gain in consumer surplus (represented by area B in Figure A4-2) is, in effect,
a transfer from producer surplus. Any empirical effort to estimate changes in surplus needs to ensure that if change
in total surplus is included in the estimate of post-harvest surplus, then the producer surplus estimate should be
made net of this quantity to ensure no double counting..12
Other noteworthy observations, as discussed in section 4-4.3, are that, under some circumstances, the change in
revenues may be zero or even negative and the change in producer surplus can be positive or negative. Even with
the transfer of area B from producer to consumer surplus, there are still positive net gains in producer surplus if F +
G>B.
A4-7.2 Issues in Estimating Changes in Welfare
The discussion above regarding welfare measures — and how they change with shifts in supply within the
neoclassical framework — is fairly complex, even in its simplest form. To estimate such changes in welfare as may
arise from the regulatory analysis options for the section 316(b) regulation, the problem becomes even more
complicated. Some of the empirical and conceptual complications are discussed below.
In an expedited regulatory analysis that must cover a broad range offish species across locations and fishery
markets that span the nation, EPA must rely on readily applicable generalized approaches (rather than more
detailed, market-specific assessments) to estimate changes in welfare. Hence, as noted earlier in this chapter, EPA
must rely on readily estimated changes in gross revenues and from there infer potential changes in post-harvest
(consumer) and producer surplus. Also, there are several issues associated with how to implement an expedited
approach.
First, there is the issue of how to estimate the change in gross revenues. These changes in revenues are the product
of the projected changes in fish harvests times observed baseline market prices. Thus, EPA can readily obtain an
estimate comparable to the area Y + Z + A + Bin Figure A4-5. This is the approach contemplated by the Agency
for this rulemaking to handle the case in which prices change. To more suitably capture the impact of a price
change, in future analyses EPA may attempt to apply an applicable estimate of price elasticity to obtain an estimate
that belter reflects the true measure of the change in gross revenues (i.e., areas Y + Z-U-Vin Figure A4-5).
Second, there is the issue of how to infer changes in post-harvest (consumer) surplus based on changes in revenues.
The approach described by Bishop and Holt (2003), described in greater detail in section A4-8, is specifically
designed to examine this issue. Their empirical research — limited to date to some regions and fisheries (e.g., the
Great Lakes) — suggests that the changes in post-harvest surplus may be approximated by the estimated change in
,12 Later in this chapter an approach developed by Bishop and Holt (2003) to estimating post-harvest surplus as
depicted by areas B + C + D is described. Also, note that if the fishery in question is being conducted under open
access, this means that rents to the resource are zero or very close it. Suppose furthermore that in this particular case
other rents (e.g., rents to scarce fishing skills and knowledge) are also zero. Now suppose that section 316(b) regulatory
analysis options are imposed on Phase III facilities, causing an increase in the harvest offish. The catch increases, but
any effects on rents to the resource are dissipated by entry. The effect of the regulatory analysis options is to increase
consumer surplus by an amount comparable to areas U + V + B in Figure A4-5, but there is no offsetting decline in
producer surplus because there was no producer surplus in the first place.
A4-15
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
gross revenues (where the latter is based on holding price constant at baseline levels). This method may also be
revisited by EPA in future analyses.
Third, there are a series of issues associated with how to estimate the change in producer surplus. Estimating the
change in producer surplus under a scenario in which market forces produce a price change is a challenging
exercise for a number of reasons, including:
>• Many commercial fishery markets do not adhere to the usual assumptions of the neoclassical model
because of regulations that establish harvest quotas and/or restrict entry through a permit system. These
regulations typically are instituted to protect stocks that have been or are at risk of being over-fished.
There also may be nonregulatory barriers to entry that affect this market, such as the high fixed costs and
specialized knowledge and skills required to effectively compete in some fisheries.
>• Barriers to entry, regardless of the source, can have a profound impact on the economic welfare analysis.
For example, the neoclassical model of open access would have rents driven to zero, but it is more likely
in regulated markets (or a nonregulated market with economic barriers to entry) that there are positive
rents accruing from the fishery resource (not to mention rents that accrue as well to specialized fishing
skills and knowledge).-13.
>• Empirical evidence regarding the absolute magnitude of producer surplus is limited (especially for
inferring a relationship with gross revenues). However the approach described earlier succeeded in
assessing a region and species-specific proxy for a relationship between producer surplus and gross
revenue. The proxy is based on a ratio between normal profits and gross revenue and is called the net
benefits ratio (NBRatio). However, interpreting the assessed ratio properly is challenging, for a number of
reasons:
• Available empirical data pertain to average producer surplus, and EPA's regulatory analysis must
instead address changes in producer surplus at the margin.
• The portion of producer surplus that is transferred to consumers when there is a price reduction
(represented by area U in Figure A4-5) should not be double-counted if it is captured in the estimate
of post-harvest surplus and also in the estimated change in producer surplus. Since area U is included
in the Bishop-Holt analysis of changes in post-harvest surplus, one needs to ensure that area U is not
included in (e.g., has been netted out of) the applicable estimate of the change in producer surplus.
• The estimated empirical relationship between normal profits and gross revenue needs to be adjusted
downwards to depict accurately the relationship between producer surplus and gross revenue. Limited
empirical evidence is available for such an adjustment, but seems to point to a range between 0.4 and
2.6% (U.S. EPA, 2004e).
It is important to address these issues here because of the manner in which the departure from the neoclassical
model affects the interpretation of estimates of average producer surplus relative to changes expected at the margin.
For example, marginal costs (MC) for commercial fishers may be minimal for a small increase in landings arising
from a small increase in harvestable fish — for small increases in numbers offish suitable for harvest in an area,
small increases in harvest are likely to be realized with minimal added operating expense (i.e., MC at or near zero).
This might arise where the fishers fill their quotas more easily, or exert essentially the same level of effort but come
back with a few more fish. Where fishing effort and hence fishing costs would not change much, benefits (producer
surplus) would equal the change in total revenue or be very close to it. For larger changes, marginal and average
costs could shift down.
.13. Given the highly regulated nature of many fisheries today, a wide range of producer effects is conceivable. Even
where revenues decline with a reduction in price, producer surplus could increase despite the loss in revenues. This
could occur if the effect on price is relatively small and the effect on costs and revenues is relatively large. The only
way to know for sure is to examine producer effects in specific cases or do a benefit transfer exercise using experience
in real world fisheries as a guide. Simple approaches (e.g., assuming that there is no consumer surplus because of
offsetting producer effects) are not satisfactory if there are changes in prices.
A4-16
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
This has implications for interpreting the estimated NBRatios. The standard neoclassical model assumes increasing
MC in the relevant range, so that producer surplus approaches zero with additional increments in landings. But for
the type of situation that applies to section 316(b) — i.e., with a small change in the harvestable number offish —
and given the nature of the commercial fishery (e.g., high barriers to entry due to quotas or high fixed costs), the
context is likely to reflect a situation in which costs decrease (e.g., a shift downward in MC, and perhaps MC that
are at or near zero). If so, then the argument that the average estimate for producer surplus overstates the marginal
value does not hold (in fact, the opposite may be true — average surplus could be less than producer surplus at the
margin).
A4-8 Estimating Post-Harvest Economic Surplus in Tiered Markets
Producer surplus provides an estimate of the benefits to commercial fishers, but significant benefits can also be
expected to accrue to final consumers of fish and to commercial consumers (including processors, wholesalers,
retailers, and middlemen) if the projected increase in catches is accompanied by a reduction in price. These benefits
can be expected to flow through the tiered commercial fishery market (as described in section A4-1 and in Bishop
and Holt, 2003).
Bishop and Holt (2003) develop an inverse demand model of six Great Lakes fisheries that they use to estimate
changes in welfare as a result of changes in the level of commercial harvest. This flexible model can be used to
estimate welfare changes under a variety of conditions in the fishery. It takes as an input the expected change in
harvest and baseline gross revenues, and provides as outputs the expected change in gross revenues and change in
total compensating variation (CV).
CV is the change in income that would be necessary to make consumers' total utility the same as it was before the
reduction in I&E losses resulting from the regulatory analysis options for the final section 316(b) rule for Phase III
existing facilities. This is analogous to a measure of willingness to accept compensation in order to forgo the
improvement. Conceptually, CV is a measure of welfare similar to consumer surplus. The key difference is that
consumer surplus is calculated using the familiar demand function (or curve), which defines the quantity demanded
as a function of price and income (in the simple example, Figures A4-1 and A4-2, income is assumed to be
constant). CV, on the other hand, is calculated using a compensated demand function, which defines the quantity
demanded as a function of price and utility. While consumer surplus and CV are generally very similar welfare
measures, CV is considered to be the true measure of benefits (i.e., a more consistent indicator of utility), and
consumer surplus is an approximation. The distinction between the two is a subtle point in welfare economics; the
exact details are not crucial to the analysis..14.
The key point to note is that estimates of CV from the Holt-Bishop model capture the benefits to final consumers
and commercial consumers throughout the various markets in which fish are bought and resold for a given level of
harvest. The model output provides a convenient way to estimate the benefits of an increase in harvest as a
percentage of gross revenues, and thus a tractable way to estimate the benefits of increased catch that do not accrue
to the primary producers..15. See Holt and Bishop (2002) for further detail on the model.
Based on comments received on the commercial benefits analysis for the final Phase II rule, EPA worked with
Dr. Bishop to re-assess the suitability of using the results from Holt and Bishop (2002) in a benefit transfer. EPA
determined that the magnitude of the changes in commercial catch modeled in the Holt and Bishop paper is, in
most cases, larger than the magnitude of the expected changes as a result of the Phase II and Phase III regulations,
,14 For a more detailed discussion of the difference in consumer surplus and CV, the reader is referred to in Varian
(1992, Chapters 7 and 9) or any graduate-level microeconomics text.
,15 Bishop and Holt do not estimate changes in producer surplus, and indicate such changes need to be estimated
separately and then combined with post-harvest consumer surplus results.
A4-17
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
and thus the benefits may be quite different. To address this issue, Bishop and Holt (2003) explore the impacts on
surplus measures for more moderate changes in fishery conditions, by reestimating their Great Lakes model,
relating economic surplus to levels of gross revenues.
In this more recent work, Bishop and Holt (2003) observe that, as a general rule of thumb, based on their analysis
of the Great Lakes fisheries, the change in CV as a percentage of the change in gross revenues is more or less
linearly related to the change in catch. In other words, 10% increase in catch as a result of the regulatory analysis
options for Phase III facilities would be expected to produce an increase in CV equal to approximately 10% of the
change in gross revenues. As an example, if the regulatory analysis option for Phase III facilities increases the
catch of a species by 10% and the gross value of the additional catch is $100,000, then the increase in CV would be
$10,000.
Since the increase in commercial fishing yield is small and no significant price changes are expected, no significant
change in CV is expected. In estimating benefits, EPA has assumed the change will be $0.
A4-9 Nonmonetary Benefits of Commercial Fishing
As with many activities, commercial fishing provides benefits that are not measured in the value of the catch.
Fishing is difficult and dangerous work. It involves strenuous outdoor work, long hours, and lengthy trips to sea,
often in hazardous weather conditions. "Fishing has consistently ranked as the most deadly occupation since 1992,"
when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) started publishing fatality rates by occupation (Drudi, 1998, p. 1). In
addition, the BLS Occupational Handbook: Fishers and Fishing Vessel Operators (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2002) predicts that "employment of fishers and fishing vessel operators is expected to decline through the year
2010. These occupations depend on the natural ability offish stocks to replenish themselves through growth and
reproduction, as well as on governmental regulation of fisheries. Many operations are currently at or beyond
maximum sustainable yield, partially because of habitat destruction, and the number of workers who can earn an
adequate income from fishing is expected to decline."
In spite of this, individuals still express a desire to fish, perhaps even because of the hardships and challenges of the
job. Studies on why fishers choose to fish have determined that income is, not surprisingly, the primary reason for
participating in commercial fishing. Fishers fish to support themselves and their families, and generally earn more
in fishing than they would in other occupations. There are other important factors, though, including the
importance of fishing to the way of life in small, coastal towns (not unlike the importance of farming to many rural
towns throughout the United States); the belief that fishing helps the U.S. economy; and identity, i.e., people opt to
work in commercial fishing because it provides enjoyment and because it is an integral part of how they identify
themselves psychologically and socially (Smith, 1981; Townsend, 1985; Berman et al., 1997).
Research in the economic literature indicates that some fishers opt to remain in the fishing industry despite the
ability to make higher incomes in other industries. Some economists have suggested that there exists a worker
satisfaction bonus that can, at least in theory, be measured and should be included in cost-benefit analyses when
making policy decisions (Anderson, 1980). One study identified in a cursory literature review of this topic also
found evidence in the Alaskan fisheries that as many as 29.5% of all vessels across 14 fisheries from 1975 to 1980
earned net incomes that were lower than the income they could receive from selling their fishing permit. The
author concluded that "this pattern of apparent losses seems to confirm much of the casual observation that is the
source of speculation that non-pecuniary returns are a significant factor in commercial fishing. It is thought that
these financial losses are accepted only because they are offset by non-money gains" (Karpoff, 1985).
Because the Alaskan fisheries exist under much different conditions than those in the rest of the United States, it
would be a mistake to assume that nearly 30% of U.S. fishing vessels earn incomes less than the value of their
fishing permits. However, based on EPA's review of the commercial fishing literature, there is evidence that
commercial fishers gain nonmonetary benefits from their work. Despite the existence of these nonmonetary
benefits in the commercial fishing sector, there is little research that has provided defensible methods for estimating
A4-18
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
the additional nonmonetary benefits that may accrue to commercial fishers as a result of the regulatory analysis
options for the final section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities. Thus, the omission of these nonmonetary benefits is
noted here, but no estimates will be included in the benefits analyses.
A4-10 Estimating Producer Surplus
A4-10.1 Introduction
In theory, producer surplus is equal to normal profits (total revenue minus fixed and variable costs), minus
opportunity cost of capital. However, reduced I&E-related fish deaths do not in the short run affect the level of
fixed inputs because fixed costs and inputs are incurred independent of the expected marginal increase in the level
of I&E-induced landings (personal communication; E. Tsongburg and E. Squires, 2/18/2005; D. Haksever,
7/26/2005). Variable costs such as ice and other supplies, however, directly vary with the level of landings.
Furthermore, since opportunity cost of capital is estimated only to be about 0.4 to 2.6% of producer surplus, normal
profits are assumed a sufficient proxy for producer surplus (U.S. EPA, 2004e). As a result, assessment of producer
surplus, or net benefits, of I&E-induced reductions in fish deaths and its corollary increase in landings is reduced to
a relatively straightforward calculation in which the change in producer surplus is calculated as a species- and
region-specific fraction of the change in gross revenue due to increased landings. Thus EPA assumed that fixed
inputs, such as the number of vessels, are not affected by increased landings.
A4-10.2 Methodology
»J» If cost data are available
When comprehensive data on variable costs in a fishery were readily available, EPA derived species- and region-
specific net benefits directly from the product of species-specific NBRatios (see below) and species-specific gross
revenue resulting from the regulation-induced increase in landings. Gross revenue is a function of total landings
and ex-vessel price per unit of landed fish. The methodology is based on the following assumptions:
1. Fishing mortality is constant and fishers increase their fishing activity in response to increased availability
offish, with a consequent increase in fish landings.
2. The increase in landings is a linear function of reduced I&E. Reduced I&E mortality thus directly results
in increased landings.
3. Current dockside prices per ton of catch remain constant and are not affected by increased catch.
4. The relationship between variable cost (VC) or alternatively, producer surplus, and gross revenue remains
constant (see e.g., NEFMC, 2003).
5. Fixed costs (FC) remain constant, and will not change as a result of the regulation.
6. Assuming constant dockside prices, there is no regulation-induced change in consumer surplus.
7. The derived relationship between gross revenue and producer surplus, assuming no regulation-induced
change in fixed costs, is assumed to be constant.
Following the conventional method used by NMFS fishery economists (personal communication; E. Tsongburg
and E. Squires, 2/18/2005; D. Haksever, 7/26/2005), EPA estimated net benefits, or the increase in producer
surplus, from reduced I&E-induced fish deaths using the ratio between gross revenue and normal profits as a proxy
for the initial producer surplus (equal to gross revenue minus VC), multiplied by the regulation-induced increase in
gross revenue.
A4-19
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
»J» Cost variable definitions
Variable cost (VC) consists of the following nine variable cost items, which are collected by region, gear and
vessel size. EPA calculated each of the following items as the cost of the item purchased per trip:
1. Bait
2. Food
3. Fuel
4. Ice
5 . Lubricating oil
6. Water
7. Damages
8. Supplies
9. Labor. Assessed per trip as a function of total size of crew per trip, average length of trip and based on the
mean regional wage for "Fishers and Related Fishing Workers" as assessed by the U.S. Department of
Labor.
EPA then assessed total variable cost (TVC) per trip as the sum of each of the nine VC variables, to estimate TVC
per trip by boat size and gear type for each region. The cost values for both the North and Mid- Atlantic are derived
from the fishery observer program (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/femad/fishsamp/fsb/), and gross revenue per trip is
from the NMFS Northeast Region Commercial Dealer database. Cost and revenue values for the South Atlantic
and Gulf of Mexico were provided by Larry Perruso at the South Atlantic Fisheries Science Center and based on
The Federal Logbook Trip Report Form, in addition to specific data on the shrimp fishery in the Gulf of Mexico
provided by Jim Waters, also at the South Atlantic Fisheries Science Center. Cost and revenue data for California
were derived from King and Flagg (1984) and Caroline Pomeroy at California Sea Grant.
»J» Joint variable and fixed costs
Fixed and variable costs that are jointly shared among various species, which are caught using the same vessel and
gear, and often during the same trip, must be allocated among species to realize variable cost per species. To
allocate those costs among the appropriate species, the "Use of Facilities Method" was recommended by Squires
et al. (1998) and Eric Tsongburg at the National Marine Fisheries Science Center in Woods Hole, MA (personal
communication; E. Tsongburg, 8/2/2005). This approach allocates the joint costs based on the relative quantity of
landings (measured in pounds) for each species by boat (small, medium, large) and gear type. However, due the
nature of available data, EPA used a variant of the "Use of Facilities Method" (see below). As stated before, EPA
assumes that fixed costs remain constant. Therefore fixed costs are excluded from the analysis.
»J» Net benefits ratio calculation
The calculation of regulation-induced NB Ratio by region, gear and vessel type is based on Equation 1. Assuming
that price and AVC per ton stay constant over time (or move at the same rate), the assessment of net benefits
reduces to an assessment of a NB Ratio per vessel size and gear type (Equation I).16.:
n
NBRatioitri = (1 - (— - - )) (Equation 1)
itrip
s=l
16
Each assessment is region-specific. Region-specific notation is suppressed to increase clarity.
A4-20
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A4
where:
NBRatio = the fractional share of gross revenue associated with net benefits, by gear and vessel type
i = gear and vessel type
trip = fishing trip
TVC = total variable cost per trip in US$ 2004, by vessel size and gear type
PEX = ex-vessel price per pound of species s, at time t in US$ 2004
s = individual species, measured in pounds
t = time
LN = landings per species s, per trip, in pounds
As stated above, each fish species is caught using various types of vessels and gear. As a result, a species-specific
NBRatio is developed as a weighted average of all gear specific NBRatios that are used to catch that particular
species (Equation 2):
NBRatio s =
(Equation 2)
i=\
i=\
where:
NBRatio.s. = the fractional share of gross revenue associated with net benefits, by species s
LN = landings per species s, per trip, in pounds
s = individual species, measured in pounds
i = gear and vessel type
Net benefits or producer surplus per fish species is then assessed as the product of the species-specific NBRatio and
gross revenue.
»J» If cost data are not available
When cost data were not available for individual species, EPA indirectly derived the NBRatio from other regions
and/or species relying on the region and species-specific NBRatios. EPA transferred the NBRatio based on
similarity of attributes, such as harvesting and management methods. In the case of species aggregates (e.g., forage
species), EPA assumed that the net benefit ratio is equal to the simple average of all empirically estimated net
benefit ratios in the region.
A4-10.3 Region-Specific Estimates of Net Benefits Ratios
»J» North Atlantic region
Table A4-4 summarizes, for each fish species, applicable information underlying the estimates of NBRatios for the
North Atlantic region.
The results indicate that the NBRatios range from 0 to 0.82, depending on species, indicating that net benefits range
from 0 to 82% of the regulation-induced increase in gross revenue. Since variable cost data are not available for
traps and various hand lines in the North Atlantic region, the NBRatio is based on data from the Mid- and South
Atlantic region for crabs, American shad, tautog, and weakfish. The NBRatio for species managed as "open
access" such as lumpfish, sculpins, and searobin are assumed to equal zero.
A4-21
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A4
Table A4-4: North Atlantic Region, Species-Specific Gear Type, Status of Stock, and NBRatio
Fish Species
American plaice
American shad
Atlantic cod
Atlantic herring
Atlantic mackerel
Atlantic menhaden
Bluefish
Butterfish
Crabs
Lumpfish
Pollock
Red hake
Sculpins
Scup
Searobin
Silver hake
Skates
Tautog
Weakfish
White perch
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Other (forage)
Main
Management
Method
Quota
Open access
Quota
Quota
Quota
Open access
Quota
Quota
Quota
Open access
Quota
Quota
Open access
Quota
Open access
(by catch)
Quota
Open access —
w/ size restrictions
Quota
Days at sea
Open access
Quota
Quota
N/A
Main Gear Type
Otter trawl, gill net
Otter trawl, gill net,
traps
Otter trawl,
gill net, hook
Purse seine,
midwater trawl
Midwater trawl,
otter trawl
Purse seine, gill net
Otter trawl, gill net
Otter trawl
Traps
Otter trawl
Otter trawl, gill net,
long lines
Otter trawl, gill net
Otter trawl
Otter trawl, gill net,
long lines
Floating traps, otter
trawl
Otter trawl, gill net
Otter trawl, gill net
Otter trawl, gill net,
hand lines
Otter trawl, gill net,
floating traps
Gill net
Otter trawl, gill net
Otter trawl, gill net
N/A
Net Benefits as a ratio
of Gross Revenue
Status of Stock (NBRatio)
Over-utilized
N/A
Over-utilized
Under-utilized
Under-utilized
Full
Over-utilized
Under-utilized
Unknown
Unknown
Full
Over-utilized
Unknown
Over-utilized
Unknown
Over-utilized
Under-utilized
Over-utilized
Full
Under-utilized
Over-utilized
Over-utilized
N/A
0.63
0.60
0.66
0.76
0.77
0.68
0.63
0.64
0.57
0.00
0.71
0.62
0.00
0.69
0.00
0.63
0.68
0.46
0.76
0.82
0.63
0.64
0.57
»J» Mid-Atlantic region
Table A4-5 summarizes, for each fish species, applicable information underlying the estimates of NBRatios for the
Mid-Atlantic region.
The results indicate that the NBRatios range from 0.57 to 0.85, depending on species, indicating that net benefits
range from 57 to 85% of the regulation-induced increase in gross revenue. Since variable cost data are not available
for traps and various hand lines, the NBRatio for crabs, striped bass, and white perch are based on data from the
South and North Atlantic.
A4-22
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A4
In the Mid-Atlantic region, none of the affected species is considered to be managed as purely "open access" since
all have a defined management body and, as a result, could be converted to a different management regime.
Table A4-5: Mid-Atlantic Region, Species-Specific Gear Type, Status of Stock, and NBRatio
Fish Species
Alewife
American shad
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic menhaden
Blue crab
Other (commercial)
Other (commercial
and recreation)
Spot
Striped bass
Summer flounder
Weakfish
White perch
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Other (forage)
Main
Management
Method
Open access
(by catch)
Open access
Open access
(by catch)
Open access
Size
N/A
N/A
Open access
(by catch)
Quota
Quota
Per trip quota
Open access
Quota
Quota
N/A
Main Gear Type
Gill net
Gill net
Otter trawl,
gill net
Purse seine, otter trawl,
gill net
Traps
N/A
N/A
Gill net
Gill net, otter trawl,
hand lines
Otter trawl, long lines,
gill net
Otter trawl, long lines,
gill net
Otter trawl, long lines,
gill net, purse seines
Otter trawl, gill net
Otter trawl, gill net
N/A
Status of
Stock
Over-utilized
Over-utilized
Over-utilized
N/A
Unknown
N/A
N/A
Unknown
Full
Over-utilized
Full
Under-utilized
Over-utilized
Over-utilized
N/A
Net Benefits as a % of
Gross Revenue
(NBRatio)
0.85
0.84
0.74
0.67
0.57
0.73
0.73
0.84
0.67
0.65
0.76
0.82
0.70
0.70
0.73
»J» South Atlantic region
Table A4-6 summarizes, for each fish species, applicable information underlying the estimates of NBRatios for the
South Atlantic region. The results indicate that the NBRatios range from 0.39 to 0.76, depending on species,
indicating that net benefits range from 39 to 76% of the regulation-induced increase in gross revenue.
In the South Atlantic region, none of the affected species is considered to be managed as purely "open access"
since all have a defined management body and, as a result, could be converted to a different management regime.
A4-23
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A4
Table A4-6: South Atlantic Region, Species-Specific Gear Type, Status of Stock, and NBRatio
Fish Species
Alewife
American shad
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic menhaden
Black drum
Blue crab
Leatherjacket
Mackerels
Menhadens
Sea basses
Sheepshead
Shrimp
Spot
Stone crab
Striped bass
Striped mullet
Summer flounder
Weakfish
Windowpane
Other (forage)
Main Management
Method
Open access
(by catch)
Open access
(by catch)
Open access
(by catch)
None
None
Size limits
Trip limits
Quotas
Open access
Limited access
permit
Limited access
permit
Limited access
permit, area closures
Open access
(by catch)
Size limits
Quota
Gear and size
restrictions
Quota
Seasonal closures —
trip limits
Seasonal closures —
trip limits
N/A
Main Gear Type
Pound nets, gill nets
Gill nets
Otter trawl bottom,
gill nets
Purse seines, gill nets
Pound nets, gill nets
Pots and traps
Hand lines, other; reel,
electric or hydraulic
Hand lines, gill nets,
troll lines
Purse seines, gill nets
Pots and traps, trawl
Cast nets, hand lines
Trawls
Gill nets, haul seines
Pots and traps
Gill nets, haul seines
Gill nets, drift,
runaround; cast nets
Trawl
Gill nets, otter trawl
Trawl
N/A
Net Benefits as a
Status of Ratio of Gross
Stock Revenue (NBRatio)
Over-utilized
Over-utilized
Over-utilized
Full
Unknown
Full
Unknown
Under-utilized
Full
Unknown
Unknown
Full
Over-utilized
Unknown
Full
Unknown
Over-utilized
Full
Over-utilized
N/A
0.70
0.73
0.54
0.76
0.70
0.57
0.39
0.66
0.75
0.50
0.60
0.44
0.70
0.58
0.67
0.70
0.43
0.64
0.43
0.59
»J» Gulf of Mexico region
Table A4-7 summarizes, for each fish species, applicable information underlying the estimates of NBRatios for the
Gulf of Mexico region.
As reported in Table A4-7, NBRatio estimates range from 0 to 0.79, depending on species, indicating that net
benefits range from 0 to 79% of the regulation-induced increase in gross revenue. The NBRatio for species
managed as "open access" such as Atlantic croaker, leatherjacket, spot, and sheepshead are assumed to equal zero.
A4-24
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A4
Table A4-7: Gulf of Mexico Region
Fish Species
Atlantic croaker
Black drum
Blue crab
Leatherjacket
Mackerels
Menhaden
Other (commercial)
Shrimp
Sea basses
Sheepshead
Spot
Stone crab
Striped mullet
Other (forage)
Main
Management
Method
N/A
Limited access
permits
Limited access
permits
N/A
Quotas
Seasonal/area
closures
N/A
Quotas
Limited access
permits
N/A
N/A
Seasonal closures
Total allowable
catch
N/A
, Species-Specific Gear
Main Gear Type
Combined gear
Hand lines, gill nets
Pots and traps
Rod/reel, hand and long
lines, pots and traps
Hand lines, gill nets
Purse seines
N/A
Otter trawl
Pots and traps
Gill nets
Gill nets
Pots and traps
Gill nets, cast nets
N/A
Type, Status of Stock, and NBRatio
Net Benefits as a
Ratio of Gross
Status of Stock Revenue (NBRatio)
Over-utilized
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
King-
over-utilized
Spanish-
fully-utilized
Fully-utilized
N/A
Fully-utilized
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Fully-utilized
Unknown
N/A
0.00
0.69
0.72
0.00
0.75
0.76
0.46
0.43
0.72
0.00
0.00
0.71
0.79
0.46
»J» California region
Table A4-8 summarizes, for each fish species, applicable information underlying the estimates of NBRatios for the
California region.
As reported in Table A4-8, NBRatio estimates range from 0.00 to 0.74, depending on species, indicating that net
benefits range from 0 to 74% of the regulation-induced increase in gross revenue. The NBRatio for species
managed as "open access" such as American shad, is assumed to equal zero.
A4-25
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A4
Table A4-8: California Region, Species-Specific Gear Type, Status of Stock, and NBRatio
Fish Species
American shad
Anchovies
Cabezon
California halibut
California
scorpionfish
Commercial sea
basses
Commercial shrimp
Commercial crabs
Drums croakers
Dungeness crab
Flounders
Northern anchovy
Rockfishes
Sculpins
Smelts
Surfperches
Other (forage)
Main Management
Method
None
Total allowable catch
Quotas
Total allowable catch
Quotas
Seasonal closures —
prohibited species
Seasonal closures
Seasonal closures
Permits — prohibited
species
Seasonal closures
Quotas
Total allowable catch
Quotas
Nonrestrictive permits
Seasonal closures
Quotas
N/A
Main Gear Type
Nets
Nets
Gill nets, nets excluding
trawls, hand lines, pots
and traps
Nets excluding trawls,
trawls
Otter trawl bottom
Nets excluding trawls
Otter trawl bottom,
trawls
Pots and traps
Nets excluding trawls,
gill nets
Pots and traps
Trawls, otter trawl
bottom
Nets excluding trawls
Otter trawl bottom, hand
lines, trawls
Trawls
Nets excluding trawls
Hand lines
N/A
Net Benefits as a
Status of Ratio of Gross
Stock Revenue (NBRatio)
Unknown
Under-utilized
Unknown
Under-utilized
Unknown
Unknown
Fully-utilized
Fully-utilized
Unknown
Fully-utilized
Under-utilized
Under-utilized
Fully-utilized
Under-utilized
Fully-utilized
Over-utilized
N/A
0.00
0.64
0.52
0.58
0.47
0.66
0.15
0.74
0.42
0.74
0.64
0.64
0.62
0.64
0.66
0.37
0.53
»J» Great Lakes region
Table A4-9 summarizes, for each fish species, applicable information underlying the estimates of NBRatios for the
Great Lakes region. As reported in Table A4-9, NBRatio estimates are equal to 0.29 indicating that net benefits
equal 29% on average of the regulation-induced increase in gross revenue.
A4-26
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A4
Table A4-9: Great Lakes Region, Species-Specific Gear Type, Status of Stock, and NBRatio
Net Benefits as a
Main Management ratio of Gross
Fish Species
Black bullhead
Brown bullhead
Bullhead species
Channel catfish
Crab
Flounder
Freshwater drum
Menhaden species
Pink shrimp
Rainbow smelt
Sculpin species
Smelt
White bass
Whitefish
Yellow perch
Method
State specific
State specific
State specific
State specific
State specific
State specific
State specific
State specific
State specific
State specific
State specific
State specific
State specific
State specific
State specific
Main Gear Type
Gill and trap nets
Gill and trap nets
Gill and trap nets
Gill and trap nets
Gill and trap nets
Gill and trap nets
Gill and trap nets
Gill and trap nets
Gill and trap nets
Gill and trap nets
Gill and trap nets
Gill and trap nets
Gill and trap nets
Gill and trap nets
Gill and trap nets
Status of Stock Revenue (NBRatio)
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
A4-11 Methods Used to Estimate Commercial Fishery Benefits from Reduced I&E;
Summary
EPA estimated the commercial benefits expected under the regulatory analysis options for the final section 316(b)
rule for Phase III facilities with the following steps. In steps 1 through 3, EPA estimated total losses under current
I&E conditions (or the total benefits of eliminating all I&E). Then, in step 4, EPA applied the estimated percentage
reduction in I&E to estimate the benefits expected under each analysis option. Each step is performed for each
region in the final analysis.
The steps used to estimate regional losses and benefits are as follows:
1. Estimate losses to commercial harvest (in pounds offish) attributable to I&E under current
conditions. EPA modeled these losses using the methods presented in Chapter A1 of Part A of this
document. EPA assumed a linear relationship between stock and harvest, such that if 10% of the current
commercially targeted stock were harvested, then 10% of the commercially targeted fish lost to I&E
would have been harvested, absent I&E. The percentage offish harvested is based on data on historical
fishing mortality rates.
2. Estimate gross revenue of lost commercial catch. EPA estimated the value of the commercial catch lost
due to I&E using data on landings and dockside price ($/lb) as reported by NOAA Fisheries for the period
1991-2003. These data were used to estimate the total revenue for the lost commercial harvest under
current conditions (i.e., the increase in gross revenue that would be expected if all I&E impacts were
eliminated).
A4-27
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
3. Estimate lost economic surplus. The conceptually appropriate measure of benefits is the sum of any
changes in producer and consumer surplus. The methods used for estimating the change in surplus depend
on whether the physical impact on the commercial fishery market appears sufficiently small such that it is
reasonable to assume there will be no appreciable price changes in the markets for the impacted fisheries.
a. For the regions included in this analysis, it is reasonable to assume no change in price, which
implies that the welfare change is limited to changes in producer surplus. This change in producer
surplus, captured by "normal profits," is assumed to be equivalent to a fixed proportion of the
change in gross revenues, as developed under step 2. EPA estimated species- and region-specific
ratios (NBRatios) between producer surplus and gross revenue, as presented in section A4-10.
EPA then applied the NBRatio to the estimated lost revenue to estimate total lost economic
surplus. This ratio ranges from 0 to 84%.
b. EPA believes this is an appropriate approach to estimating producer surplus when there are no
anticipated price changes. EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (U.S. EPA,
2000a; EPA 240-R-00-003) describes options for estimating ecological benefits for fisheries, and
note that "if changes in service flows are small, current market prices can be used as a proxy for
expected benefit... a change in the commercial fish catch might be valued using the market
price for the affected species." This statement indicates that 100% of the gross revenue change,
based on current prices, may be a suitable measure of value and this analysis takes a similar
approach.
4. Estimate increase in surplus attributable to the regulatory analysis options. Once the commercial
surplus losses associated with I&E under baseline conditions were estimated according to the approaches
outlined in steps 2 and 3, EPA estimated the percentage reduction in I&E at each facility under each
regulatory analysis option. This analysis was conducted for each region. EPA computed the increase in
gross revenue using the method described in step 2, and then estimated the producer surplus using the
fractional approach described in step 3.
A4-12 Limitations and Uncertainties
Table A4-10 summarizes the caveats, omissions, biases and uncertainties known to affect the estimates that were
developed for the benefits analysis.
A4-28
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A4
Table A4-10: Caveats, Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the Commercial Benefits Estimates
Issue
Impact on Benefits Estimate
Comments
Change in commercial landings due
to I&E is uncertain
Uncertain
Projected changes in harvest may be
under-estimated because neither
cumulative impacts of I&E over time
nor interactions with other stressors
are considered.
Some estimates of commercial
harvest losses due to I&E under
current conditions are not
region/species-specific
Uncertain
EPA estimated the impact of I&E in
the case study analyses based on data
provided by the facilities. The most
current data available were used.
However, in some cases these data
are 20 years old or older. Thus, they
may not reflect current conditions.
Effect of change in stocks on landings
is not considered
Uncertain
EPA assumed a linear stock to
harvest relationship, so that a 10%
change in stock would have a 10%
change in landings; this may be low
or high, depending on the condition
of the stocks. Region-specific
fisheries regulations also will affect
the validity of the linear assumption.
Effect of uncertainty in estimates of
commercial landings and prices is
unknown
Uncertain
EPA assumes that NOAA landings
data are accurate and complete. In
some cases prices and/or quantities
may be reported incorrectly.
A4-29
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
Chapter A5: Recreational Fishing
Benefits Methodology
Chapter Contents
A5-1
A5-2
A5-3
A5-4
A5-5
Introduction
EPA used a benefit transfer approach to estimate the
welfare gain to recreational anglers from improved
recreational fishing opportunities due to reductions in
impingement and entrainment (I&E) under the
regulatory analysis options considered for the final
section 316(b) rule for Phase III existing facilities.
Benefit transfer involves adapting research conducted
for another purpose to address the policy questions at
hand (Bergstrom and De Civita, 1999). Although
primary research methods are generally preferred to
benefit transfer methods, benefit transfer is often the
second (or only) alternative to original studies due to
resource or data constraints. EPA notes that Smith et
al. (2002, p. 134) state that ". . . nearly all benefit cost
analyses rely on benefit transfers . . .."
For the Phase III analysis, EPA used a benefit transfer
approach based on a meta-analysis to evaluate
recreational fishing benefits of the regulatory analysis
options for all study regions. To validate the meta-
analysis results, EPA also used regional random utility
models (RUM) of recreational fishing behavior
developed for the Phase II analysis to estimate welfare
gain to recreational anglers from improved
recreational opportunities resulting from reduced I&E
offish species at Phase III facilities. EPA used the RUM approach to validate results for the four coastal regions
and the Great Lakes region, but was unavailable for the Inland region because of a lack of data on Inland site
characteristics, including baseline catch rates and presence of boat ramps and other recreational amenities.
Chapter All of the Phase II Regional Analysis document provides a more detailed discussion of the methodology
used in EPA's RUM analysis (U.S. EPA, 2004a).
Benefit transfer methods fall within three fundamental classes: (1) transfer of an unadjusted fixed value estimate
generated from a single study site, (2) the use of expert judgment to aggregate or otherwise alter benefits to be
transferred from a site or set of sites, and (3) estimation of a value estimator model derived from study site data,
often from multiple sites (Bergstrom and De Civita, 1999). Recent studies have shown little support for the
accuracy or validity of the first method, leading to increased attention to, and use of, adjusted values estimated by
one of the remaining two approaches (Bergstrom and De Civita, 1999).
Literature Review Procedure and
Organization A5 -2
Description of Studies A5-3
Meta-Analysis of Recreational Fishing
Studies: Regression Model A5-10
A5-3.1 Meta-Data A5-10
A5-3.2 Model and Results A5-17
A5-3.3 Interpretation of Regression
Analysis Results A5-20
Application of the Meta-Analysis Results
to the Analysis of Recreational Benefits of
the Section 316(b) Regulatory Analysis
Options for Phase III Facilities A5 -23
A5-4.1 Estimating Marginal Value per
Fish A5-23
A5-4.2 Calculating Recreational
Benefits A5-26
Limitations and Uncertainties A5 -26
A5-5.1 Sensitivity Analysis Based on
Krinsky and Robb (1986)
Approach A5-27
A5-5.2 Variable Assignments for
Independent Regressors A5-28
A5-5.3 Other Limitations and
Uncertainties A5-28
A5-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
The third class of benefit transfer approaches includes meta-analysis techniques, which have been increasingly
explored by economists as a potential basis of policy analysis conducted by various government agencies charged
with the stewardship of natural resources.-1. Although there are few generally accepted guidelines for meta-
analyses applied to environmental policy, EPA believes that this is a promising methodology for policy
evaluation. This chapter describes how EPA applied meta-analysis, which is often cited as a more appropriate
means of benefit transfer, to estimate the welfare gain associated with improved recreational catch.
The first step in implementing an "adjusted value" benefit transfer approach is a systematic analysis of the
available economic studies that estimate the welfare gain associated with improved recreational catch. The
Agency identified 48 valuation studies that use stated preference or revealed preference techniques to elicit
benefit values for changes in recreational catch. All of these studies provide estimates of the marginal value to
fishers of catching an additional fish, or provide sufficient information for EPA to calculate such a value. These
studies vary in several respects, including valuation methodology, survey administration method, species targeted
by anglers, baseline catch rate, location, and economic and demographic characteristics of the sample.
To examine the relative influence of study, economic, and resource characteristics on willingness-to-pay (WTP)
for catching an additional fish, the Agency conducted a regression-based meta-analyses of 391 estimates of WTP
(or marginal value) per fish, provided by the 48 original studies. The estimated econometric model can be used to
calculate per fish values for species that are potentially affected by I&E.
The following discussion summarizes the results of EPA's analysis of recreational fishing studies and outlines the
methodology for applying meta-regression results to the estimation of benefits from reduced I&E attributable to
the regulatory analysis options.
A5-1 Literature Review Procedure and Organization
EPA performed an in-depth search of the economic literature to identify valuation studies that estimate — or
provide sufficient information to calculate — the value that anglers place on catching an additional fish. EPA
used a variety of sources and search methods to identify relevant studies:
*• review of EPA's research and bibliographies dealing with the recreational benefits of fishing;
>• systematic review of recent issues of resource economics journals (e.g., Land Economics, Journal of
Agricultural and Resource Economics, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Water
Resources Research);
*• searches of online reference and abstract databases [e.g., Environmental Valuation Resource Inventory
(EVRI), the Fish and Wildlife Service's Database of Sportfishing Values];
*• queries to academic search engines (e.g., EconLit, ISI Web of Science, Index of Digital Dissertations);
*• visits to homepages of authors known to have published valuation studies of recreational fishing;
*• searches of web sites of agricultural and resource economics departments at several colleges and
universities; and
*• searches of web sites of organizations and agencies known to publish environmental and resource
economics valuation research [e.g., Resources for the Future (RFF), National Center for Environmental
Economics (NCEE), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Library of Congress'
Congressional Research Service].
-1. Meta-analysis is "the statistical analysis of a large collection of results for individual studies for the purposes of
integrating the findings" (Glass, 1976).
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
From this review, EPA identified approximately 450 journal articles, academic working papers, reports, books,
and dissertations that were potentially relevant for this analysis. Forty-eight of these studies were included in the
data set for the recreational meta-analysis because they met the criteria listed below:
>• Specific amenity valued: Selected studies were limited to those that estimated WTP that recreational
anglers place on catching an additional fish or provided sufficient information for EPA to calculate such a
value;
>• Location: Selected studies were limited to those that surveyed U.S. or Canadian populations; and
>• Research methods: Selected studies were limited to those that applied primary research methods
supported by journal literature.
The Agency utilized information from each of the studies to compile an extensive data set for use in the meta-
analysis. The complete data set is provided in the public record for the proposed rule (see DCN 7-4923 and
DCN 7-4924), and includes the following information:
>• full study citation;
>• study methodology (e.g., research method, survey administration method, question format);
>• sample characteristics (e.g., sample size, response rate, income, age, gender);
>• study location (e.g., waterbody name, waterbody type, geographic location);
>• description of fishing quality (e.g., target species, fishing mode, baseline catch rate, post-change catch
rate);
>• marginal value per fish, updated to 2004 dollars; and
>• methods for obtaining marginal values per fish (i.e., whether marginal value per fish was directly
available from the study, marginal value calculation method).
A5-2 Description of Studies
As noted above, EPA selected 48 recreational angling valuation studies that allow estimation of the value of
catching an additional fish. These studies were published between 1982 and 2004, and are based on data from
surveys conducted between 1977 and 2001. The studies all apply standard, generally accepted valuation methods,
such as contingent valuation, travel cost models, and random utility models, to assess marginal value per fish.
Studies were excluded if they did not conform to general concepts of economic theory, or if they applied methods
not generally accepted in the economic literature.
All selected studies focus on changes in recreational catch rates in the U.S. or Canada. Beyond this general
similarity, the studies vary in several respects. Differences include the species targeted by anglers, the magnitude
of the change in catch rates, the location of the study, the survey administration method, demographics of the
survey sample, and statistical methods employed. The 48 studies include 24 journal articles, 15 reports, five Ph.D.
dissertations, three academic or staff papers, and one book. Twenty studies share a primary author with at least
one other study. These 20 studies have a combined total of eight individuals as primary authors.
Because multiple estimates of the marginal per-fish value are available from most of the studies, the 48 studies
selected for the meta-analysis provide 391 observations for the final data set. Some of the characteristics that
allow multiple observations to be derived from a single study include variations in the baseline catch rate, the
species being valued, the locations where fish were caught, the fishing method (i.e., boat or shore), and the
valuation methodology.
A5-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
Survey response rates from the studies range from 38% to 99%, and study sample sizes range from 72 to 36,802
responses. Two hundred and ten estimates from 21 studies are based on random utility models, 59 estimates from
11 studies are based on travel cost models, and 122 estimates from 20 studies are based on stated preference
methods.-2. EPA calculated the marginal value per fish based on information provided in the study for 93 estimates
from 15 studies, and for the remaining estimates the marginal values were provided by the authors.
Table A5-1 lists key study and resource characteristics and indicates the number of observations derived from
each study.
From these 48 studies, the Agency compiled a data set for the meta-analysis of marginal values per fish. The
following section describes the estimation of this model and its application to the regulatory analysis options for
Phase III facilities.
2. The number of studies employing each valuation methodology does not sum to the total number of studies
because some studies used different valuation methods, from which multiple observations were derived.
A5-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
Table A5-1: Select Characteristics of Recreational
Author and Year
Agnello (1989)
Alexander (1995)
Berrens et al. (1993)
Besedin et al. (2004b)
Bockstael et al. (1989)
Boyle et al. (1998)
Breffle et al. (1999)
Number of
Observations
30
8
1
12
1
4
8
State(s)
FL to NY
OR
OR
MI
MD
FWS mountain trout,
western trout, northeast
trout, and northern bass
regions
WI
Angling Valuation Studies Used in the Meta-Analysisa
Study Methodology/
Elicitation Format
Travel cost
Nested RUM
CV (payment card)
Non-nested RUM
Travel cost
CV (dichotomous choice)
Marginal Value per Fishb
Bluefish ($0.72 to $9.49)
Flounder ($3. 42 to $29.47)
Weakfish ($0.05 to $9.96)
All three species ($1.19 to $16.24)
Steelhead trout ($3.69 to $23.82)
Chinook salmon ($4. 10)
Bass ($13.51 to $17.60)
Perch ($1.84 to $3. 03)
Walleye/pike ($10.45 to $21.94)
Salmon/trout ($21.14 to $24.01)
General/no target ($1.62 to $3.43)
Striped bass ($2.29)
Trout ($0.94 to $4.07)
Bass ($4.34)
Yellow perch ($0.81 to $1.61)
Trout/salmon ($21.58 to $43.28)
Walleye ($4.25 to $8.57)
Smallmouth bass ($14.08 to $28.25)
Cameron and Huppert (1989)
Cameron and James (1987a)
Cameron and James (1987b)
Carson et al. (1990)
Dalton et al. (1998)
Gautam and Steinbeck (1998)
2
1
1
3
2
3
CA
British Columbia,
Canada
British Columbia,
Canada
AK
WY
ME, NH, MA, RI, CT
CV (payment card)
CV (dichotomous choice)
CV (dichotomous choice)
CV (payment card, conjoint
analysis)
CV (dichotomous choice)
Travel cost, non-nested RUM
Salmon ($5.98 to $17.23)
Salmon ($2.58)
Salmon ($20.33)
Chinook salmon ($16.24 to $47.20)
Trout ($28.92 to $52.85)
Striped bass ($4.30 to $7.22)
A5-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
Table A5-1: Select Characteristics of Recreational Angling Valuation Studies Used in the Meta- Analysis3
Author and Year
Hicks et al. (1999)
Hicks (2002)
Huppert (1989)
Hushak et al. (1988)
Johnson et al. (1995)
Johnson (1989)
Johnson and Adams (1989)
Jones and Stokes Associates
(1987)
Kirkley et al. (1999)
Lee (1996)
Loomis (1988)
Lupi and Hoehn (1998)
Number of
Observations
44
3
3
3
19
5
1
4
10
5
13
3
State(s)
ME, NH, MA, RI, CT,
NY, NJ, DE, MD, VA
NH to VA
CA
OH
CO
CO
OR
AK
VA
WA
OR,WA
MI
Study Methodology/
Elicitation Format
Nested RUM
CV (conjoint analysis),
non-nested RUM
CV (payment card), travel cost
Travel cost
CV (iterative bidding,
dichotomous choice)
CV (iterative bidding)
CV (multiple methods)
Non-nested RUM
CV (open-ended)
CV (conjoint analysis)
Travel cost
Nested RUM
Marginal Value per Fishb
Big game ($5. 83 to $8.42)
Bottomfish ($2.08 to $3.34)
Small game ($3.09 to $4.77)
Flatfish ($3.95 to $7.33)
Summer flounder ($2.66 to $4.78)
Chinook salmon and striped bass ($7.96 to
$60.08)
Walleye ($2.41 to $3.22)
Trout ($0.56 to $3.02)
Brown and rainbow trout ($0.89 to $1.66)
Rainbow trout ($2.65)
Steelheadtrout($11.46)
Halibut ($\5%.22)
Chinook salmon ($336.45)
Coho salmon ($183. 65)
Dolfyvarden($23.90)
Bottomfish and croaker ($3.14 to $13.24)
Summer flounder ($4.82 to $20.47)
Gamefish ($16.86 to $67.43)
No target ($1.98 to $8.43)
Trout ($1.1 6 to $3. 94)
Steelhead trout ($42.11 to $187.33)
Salmon ($13.60 to $117.41)
Lake trout ($10.40 to $14.29)
A5-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
Table A5-1: Select Characteristics of Recreational Angling Valuation Studies Used in the Meta-Analysis3
Author and Year
Number of
Observations
State(s)
Study Methodology/
Elicitation Format
Marginal Value per Fishb
Lupi et al. (1997)
10
MI
Nested RUM
Bass ($8.78)
Carp ($1.44)
Coho salmon ($18.84)
Northern pike ($2 Al)
Rainbow trout ($10.40 to $16.21)
Chinook salmon ($4.15 to $13.62)
Lake trout ($6.79)
Walleye ($3.76)
McConnell and Strand (1994)
Murdock(2001)
36
FL to NY
CV (dichotomous choice)
Big game ($0.67 to $56.09)
Small game ($11.91 to $31.77)
Flatfish ($0.38 to $10.79)
Bottomfish ($0.26 to $4.64)
Milliman et al. (1992)
Morey et al. (1993)
Morey et al. (2002)
Morey et al. (1991)
1
2
2
3
MI
ME
MT
OR
CV (dichotomous choice)
Nested RUM
Nested RUM
Non-nested RUM
Yellow perch ($0.34)
Atlantic salmon ($397.45 to $629.94)
Trout ($11.95 to $203.57)
Salmon ($5.82)
Oceanperch ($14.12)
Smelt and grunion ($33.30)
WI
Nested RUM
Panfish ($10.04)
Walleye ($23.26)
Smallmouth bass ($20.01)
Temperate bass ($4.35)
Northern pike ($16.12)
Musky ($166.77)
7>OM?($33.59)
Salmon ($53.05)
Norton et al. (1983)
ME to NC
Travel cost
Striped bass ($3.48 to $32.87)
Olsen et al. (1991)
WA, OR
CV (open-ended)
Salmon ($22.56 to $38.49)
Steelhead trout ($38.04 to $83.56)
Pendleton and Mendelsohn (1998)
ME, NH, VT, NY
Non-nested RUM
Rainbow trout ($24.02)
Other trout ($4.44 to $27.18)
A5-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
Table A5-1: Select Characteristics of Recreational Angling Valuation Studies Used in the Meta-Analysis3
Author and Year
Number of
Observations
State(s)
Study Methodology/
Elicitation Format
Marginal Value per Fishb
Rowe et al. (1985)
24
CA, OR, WA
Non-nested RUM
Coastal pelagics ($3.93 to $4.57)
Flatfish ($3.40 to $14.73)
Rockfish and bottomfish ($2.70 to $6.98)
Salmon ($7.41 to $32.11)
Smelt and grunion ($0.31 to $7.61)
Samples and Bishop (1985)
MI
Travel cost
Salmon and trout ($19.54)
Schuhmann (1996)
NC
Non-nested RUM
Big game ($34.73 to $136.83)
Bottomfish ($14.94)
Draw ($1.70 to $11.89)
Surface fish ($13.02 to $26.69)
Schuhmann (1998)
MD,NC
Non-nested RUM
Billfish ($34.66)
Bottomfish ($14.92)
Z)/ww($11.87)
Surface fish ($13.01)
Shaferetal. (1993)
PA
Travel cost
Trout ($139)
U.S. EPA (2004a)
31
CA
Non-nested RUM
Big game ($2.21 to $6.65)
Bottomfish ($1.42 to $2.84)
Flatfish ($3.28 to $11.37)
Jacks ($29.97)
Salmon ($8.70 to $16.00)
Sea bass ($0.37 to $0.75)
Small game ($2.32 to $3.18)
Striped bass ($4.43 to $8.65)
Sturgeon ($63.15)
No target/other ($0.47 to $6.87)
U.S. EPA (2004b)
15 NYtoVA
Nested RUM
Big game ($21.56)
Bluefish ($6.50 to $6.60)
Bottomfish ($4.83 to $4.89)
Flatfish ($8.79 to $8.99)
Other small game ($4.81 to $6.83)
Striped bass ($15.95 to $16.00)
Weakfish ($14.71 to $15.41)
No target ($5.86 to $5.99)
A5-,
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
Table A5-1: Select Characteristics of Recreational Angling Valuation Studies Used in the Meta-Analysis3
Author and Year
Number of
Observations
State(s)
Study Methodology/
Elicitation Format
Marginal Value per Fishb
U.S. EPA (2004c)
10
FL, NC, SC, GA
Non-nested RUM
Big game ($38.95)
Bottomfish ($5.05 to $9.65)
Flatfish ($28.40 to $32.05)
Small game ($10.60 to $14.10)
Snapper and grouper ($5.56)
No target ($7.62 to $20.28)
U.S. EPA(2004d)
13
FL, AL, MS, LA
Non-nested RUM
Big game ($31.33)
Bottomfish ($2.27 to $7.43)
Flatfish ($9.67 to $17.09)
Seatrout ($10.42 to $14.24)
Small game ($13.21 to $16.08)
Snapper and grouper ($11.59 to $11.79)
No target ($5.50 to $6.54)
Vaughan and Russell (1982)
USA
Travel cost
Trout ($1.17)
Catfish ($0.80)
Whitehead and Haab (1999)
NC, SC, GA, FL, AL,
MI, LA
Non-nested RUM
Small game ($4.44)
Whitehead and Aiken (2000)
USA
CV (dichotomous choice)
Bass ($4.73 to $10.66)
Williams and Bettoli (2003)
TN
CV (dichotomous choice)
Trout ($0.64 to $9.69)
a. Where multiple observations are available from a given study, state, study methodology/elicitation format, and species may take on different values for
different observations from that study.
b The marginal values per fish presented here represent the highest and lowest values from the study for the specified species or group of species. Italicized
values in this column indicate that EPA calculated the marginal value per fish from information in the study. All values are presented in 2004$.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
A5-9
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
A5-3 Meta-Analysis of Recreational Fishing Studies: Regression Model
EPA estimated a meta-analysis model based on 391 estimates of the value anglers place on catching an additional
fish, derived from 48 original studies. The meta-data, model specification, model results, and interpretation of
those results are discussed in sections A5-3.1 through A5-3.3.
In a frequently cited work, Glass (1976) characterizes meta-analysis as "the statistical analysis of a large
collection of results for individual studies for the purposes of integrating the findings. It provides a rigorous
alternative to the casual, narrative discussion of research studies which is commonly used to make some sense of
the rapidly expanding research literature" [p. 3; cited in Poe et al. (2001), p. 138]. Meta-analysis is being
increasingly explored as a potential means to estimate resource values in cases where original targeted research is
impractical, or as a means to reveal systematic components of WTP (Smith and Osborne, 1996; Santos, 1998;
Rosenberger and Loomis, 2000a; Poe et al., 2001; Woodward and Wui, 2001; Bateman and Jones, 2003; Johnston
et al., 2003). While the literature urges caution in the use and interpretation of benefit transfers for direct policy
application (e.g., Desvousges et al., 1998; Poe et al., 2001), such methods are "widely used in the United States by
government agencies to facilitate benefit-cost analysis of public policies and projects affecting natural resources"
(Bergstrom and De Civita, 1999). Transfers based on meta-analysis are common in both the United States and
Canada (Bergstrom and De Civita, 1999).
Depending on the suitability of available data, meta-analysis can provide a superior alternative to the calculation
and use of a simple arithmetic mean WTP over the available observations, as it allows estimation of the
systematic influence of study methodology, sample characteristics, and natural resource attributes on WTP
(Johnston et al., 2003). The primary advantage of a regression-based (statistical) approach is that it accounts for
differences among study characteristics that may contribute to changes in WTP, to the extent permitted by
available data. An additional advantage is that meta-analysis can reveal systematic factors influencing WTP,
allowing assessments of whether, for example, WTP estimates are (on average) sensitive to the baseline resource
conditions (Smith and Osborne, 1996).
A5-3.1 Meta-Data
Meta-analysis is largely an empirical, data-driven process, but one in which variable and model selection is
guided by theory. Given a reliance on information available from the underlying studies that comprise the meta-
data, meta-analysis models most often represent a middle ground between model specifications that would be
most theoretically appropriate and those specifications that are possible given available data. Smith and Osborne
(1996), Rosenberger and Loomis (2000a), Poe et al. (2001), Bateman and Jones (2003), Dalhuisen et al. (2003),
and others provide insight into the mechanics of specifying and estimating meta-equations in resource economics
applications.
To guide development of variable specifications, EPA relied upon a set of general principles. These principles are
designed to prevent excessive data manipulations and other factors that may lead to misleading model results. The
general principles include, all else being equal:
>• models should attempt to capture elements of scale of resource changes;
>• models should focus on distinguishing marginal values associated with different types of species in
different regions, particularly where relevant to the policy question at hand;
>• in the absence of overriding theoretical considerations, continuous variables are generally preferred to
discrete variables derived from underlying continuous distributions; and
>• where possible, exogenous constraints should be avoided in favor of "letting the data speak for
themselves."
Based on these criteria, EPA selected a set of variables believed to have a potential influence on the estimated
WTP per additional fish caught. Variable selection was guided primarily by prior findings in the literature, and
constrained by information available from the original studies that comprise the meta-data. The dependent
A5-10
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
variable chosen for the meta-analysis is the natural logarithm of WTP per fish, as reported in each original study
or as calculated by EPA from information provided by the studies. EPA chose to use the natural log of the
dependent variable instead of the linear form, based on (1) data fit, (2) the intuitive nature of results, and (3) the
common use of this functional form in the meta-analysis literature (e.g., Smith and Osborne, 1996; Santos, 1998).
Section A5-3.2 discusses this decision in greater detail. Per fish values were adjusted to 2004$ based on the
relative change in the consumer price index (CPI) from the study year to 2004. The real value per fish over the
sample ranged from 4.9 cents to $629.94, with a mean value of $17.29 and a median value of $5.99.
The independent variables included in the meta-analysis characterize the species being valued, study location,
baseline catch rate, elicitation and survey methods, demographics of survey respondents, and other specifics of
each study. All independent variables are linear. For ease of exposition, these variables are categorized into those
characterizing (1) study methodology, (2) sample characteristics, (3) species targeted, and (4) angling quality.
Variables included in each category are summarized below.
Study methodology variables characterize such features as:
*• the valuation method (e.g., stated preference, travel cost, or random utility model);
*• the year in which a study was conducted;
*• the survey administration method; and
*• reported survey response rates.
Sample characteristics variables characterize such features as:
*• the average income of respondents;
*• the demographic composition of respondents; and
*• the number of fishing trips taken each year by respondents.
Species targeted variables characterize such features as:
>• the species targeted by anglers; and
>• the geographic region in which the species was targeted.
Angling quality variables characterize such features as:
>• the baseline catch rate; and
>• the fishing mode (e.g., shore or boat).
Although the interpretation and calculation of most variables is relatively straightforward, a few variables require
additional explanation. In particular, the calculation of the dependent variable requires more explanation. 3. The
majority of studies provide estimates of WTP per fish, but some studies do not provide estimates of marginal
value. In these cases, EPA calculated WTP per fish in one of two ways. The Agency's preferred approach was to
use the regression coefficients from the equation presented in the study to calculate the marginal value per fish.
For example, a simple linear travel cost model might express the number of trips (Trips') taken by a respondent as
a function of travel cost (TC), the catch rate (CR), and whether or not the respondent owns a boat (B):
Trips = a + /VC + ZCR + SB (Equatlon
All calculations used by EPA to estimate marginal values are documented in DCN 7-4922.
A5-11
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
The marginal value per fish is then calculated as follows:
— (Equation 2)
In the case of RUM studies, the deterministic part of the utility function (V) is in general expressed as a function
of travel cost (TC), historic catch rates for various fish species (CR), and a vector of other site attributes (X):
, (Equations)
where:
V (j) = the expected utility of fishing at site j
TQ = travel cost to site j
CR (j,s) = historic catch rate for species s at site j
X.j. = attributes of site j
Angler willingness-to-pay for catching an additional fish can be calculated as a ratio of the first derivative of the
utility function with respect to the travel cost and catch rate variables. This is interpreted as the change in travel
cost (TC.j.) that is just sufficient to return a representative angler to a baseline level of utility, subsequent to a one-
fish increase in catch rate that results in an increase in utility above the baseline. Formally, marginal WTP per fish
may be expressed as:
(Equation 4)
where the numerator and denominator of (4) are directly revealed by statistical model coefficients. Equation 4
expresses the rate at which anglers are willing to exchange a unit increase in catch rates for a unit increase in the
costs of travel.
In cases where EPA was not able to calculate marginal willingness-to-pay per fish from the regression coefficients
due to insufficient information, the Agency used linear extrapolation to approximate marginal values. In most
cases, this involved calculating average WTP per fish for some specified increase in catch rates. For example, if a
study reports that the average respondent is willing to pay ten dollars per trip to catch an additional two fish per
trip, then EPA calculated average marginal WTP per fish to be ten dollars divided by two fish, or five dollars per
fish.
Another set of variables that requires explanation is the variables that characterize the fish species targeted by
anglers. The original studies value a large variety of species. To reduce the number of species variables to a
manageable number, and to reduce the number of times in which a species-specific dummy variable distinguishes
only a single study, EPA assigned each species to an aggregate species group. These assignments were based on
the angling, biological, and regional characteristics of each species. The groups include four saltwater species
groups (big game, small game, flatfish, and other saltwater fish), two anadromous species groups (salmon and
steelhead trout), and five freshwater species groups (panfish, bass, musky, walleye/pike, and trout).4 The "other
saltwater" group includes bottomfish species, species caught by anglers not targeting any particular species, and
species that did not clearly fit in one of the other groups. The panfish group includes freshwater species such as
The small game group includes some anadromous species, such as striped bass, that spawn in tidal rivers.
A5-12
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
yellow perch, catfish, sunfish, and other warm water species. Some species groups were further subdivided on the
basis of regional differences. Table A5-2 shows the species assigned to each aggregate species group.
Table A5-2: Aggregate Species Groups
Aggregate Number of
Group Observations Species Included3
Big game 30 Billfish family, dogfish, rays, sharks, skates, sturgeon, swordfish, tarpon
family, tuna, other big game
Small game 74 Barracuda, bluefish, bonito, cobia, dolly varden, dolphinfish, jacks, mackerel,
red drum, seatrout, striped bass, weakfish, other small game
Flatfish 46 Halibut, sanddab, summer flounder, winter flounder, other flatfish
Other saltwater 89 Banded drum, black drum, chubby, cod family, cow cod, croaker, grouper,
grunion, grunt, high-hat, kingfish, lingcod, other drum, perch, porgy, rockfish,
sablefish, sand drum, sculpin, sea bass, smelt, snapper, spot, spotted drum, star
drum, white sea bass, wreckfish, other bottom species, other coastal pelagics,
"no target" saltwater species
Salmon 44 Atlantic salmon, chinook salmon, coho salmon, other salmon
Steelhead 16 Steelhead trout, rainbow trout (in Great Lakes only)b
Muskellunge 1 Muskellunge
Walleye/pike 12 Northern pike, walleye
Bass 14 Largemouth bass, smallmouth bass
Panfish 11 Catfish, carp, yellow perch, other panfish, "general" and "no target"
freshwater species
Trout 54 Brown trout, lake trout, rainbow trout, other trout
a. Some studies evaluated WTP for groups of species that did not fit cleanly into one of the aggregate species groups
established by EPA. In those cases, the groups of species from the study were assigned to the aggregate species group
with which they shared the most species.
b Rainbow trout in the Great Lakes were classified as Steelhead trout because they share similar physical
characteristics and life cycles with true anadromous Steelhead. Although they have different common names, rainbow
trout and Steelhead both belong to the species Oncorhynchus mykiss.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
The final set of variables that require additional explanation are the catch rate variables. In general, studies
express catch rates in fish per hour, fish per day, fish per trip, or fish per year. Rather than include four separate
catch rate variables, EPA combined per hour, per day, and per trip catch rates in a normalized variable called
cr_nonyear. This variable expresses catch rates in per day units. Because most of the studies focused on single-
day trips, EPA included per trip catch rates in this variable without normalization.5. Per hour catch rates were
converted to per day catch rates by multiplying by the number of hours fished per day, as provided in the study. In
cases where the study does not provide information on fishing day length, EPA assumed that the average fishing
day lasts four hours, which is consistent with the literature where hours are reported. EPA included per year catch
rates in a separate variable, cr_year.
5 Although some studies included both multiple and single day trips the average angling trip length was often not
provided. However, the majority of recreational angling trips are single-day trips. According to the 2001 National
Survey of Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (U.S. DOI and U.S. DOC, 2002), the average angling
trip length was 1.27 days.
A5-13
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
Variables incorporated in the final model are listed and described in Table A5-3.
Variable8
log WTP
SP conjoint
SP dichot
TC individual
TC zonal
RUM nest
RUM nonnest
SP^year
TC^year
RUM^year
sp mail
spjphone
high resp rate
inc thou
age42 down
Table A5-3: Variables and Descriptive Statistics for the
Description
Natural log of the marginal value per fish.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the study used
conjoint or choice-experiment stated preference
methodology.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the study used
stated preference methodology with a dichotomous choice
elicitation format.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the study used a
travel cost model based on the number of trips taken by
individual respondents to recreational sites.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the study used a
zonal travel cost model based on the aggregate number of
trips taken to recreational sites by visitors who live within
specified distance ranges.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the study used a
nested random utility model.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the study used a
non-nested random utility model.
If the study used stated preference methodology, this
variable represents the year in which the study was
conducted, converted to an index by subtracting 1976;
otherwise, this variable is set to zero.
If the study used travel cost methodology, this variable
represents the year in which the study was conducted,
converted to an index by subtracting 1976; otherwise, this
variable is set to zero.
If the study used RUM methodology, this variable
represents the year in which the study was conducted,
converted to an index by subtracting 1976; otherwise, this
variable is set to zero.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the study was a
stated preference study administered by mail.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the study was a
stated preference study administered by phone.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the sample
response rate was greater than 50%.
Average household income of survey respondents in
thousands of dollars. If the study does not list income
values, inc thou was imputed from Census data.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the mean age of
sample respondents was less than 43. If the mean sample
age was greater than or equal to 43, or was not reported,
this variable was set equal to zero.
Regression Model
Units
(Range)
Natural log of dollars
(-3. 0260 to 6.4180)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Year index
(0 to 25)
Year index
(OtolS)
Year index
(0 to 25)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
1,000s of June 2003$
(21.990 to 70.610)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Mean
(Std. Dev.)
1.8419
(1.3165)
0.0435
(0.2042)
0.1739
(0.3795)
0.1074
(0.3100)
0.0409
(0.1984)
0.2353
(0.4247)
0.3043
(0.4607)
4.6036
(7.3592)
0.7315
(2.1914)
9.3734
(9.7162)
0.0512
(0.2206)
0.1304
(0.3372)
0.3581
(0.4800)
46.7008
(10.2017)
0.0972
(0.2966)
A5-14
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
Table A5-3: Variables and Descriptive Statistics for the Regression Model
Variable8
age43 up
trips 19 down
trips20 up
nonlocal °
big game_pacc.
big game natl
big game sail
small gamejjac
small game all
flatfishjjac
flatfish ail
other sw
musky. c.
pike walleye
bassjw
trout GL
trout nonGL
Description
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the mean age of
sample respondents was 43 or greater. If the mean sample
age was less than 43, or was not reported, this variable was
set equal to zero.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the mean number
of fishing trips taken each year by sample respondents was
less than 20. If the mean number of trips was not reported,
this variable was set equal to zero.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the mean number
of fishing trips taken each year by sample respondents was
20 or greater. If the mean number of trips was not reported,
this variable was set equal to zero.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that no respondents in
the sample were local residents.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target species
was big game in the California or Pacific Northwest
regions.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target species
was big game in the North Atlantic or Mid-Atlantic
regions.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target species
was big game in the South Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico
regions.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target species
was small game in the California or Pacific Northwest
regions.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target species
was small game in the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South
Atlantic, or Gulf of Mexico regions.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target species
was flatfish in the California or Pacific Northwest regions.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target species
was flatfish in the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South
Atlantic, or Gulf of Mexico regions.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target species
was bottom fish or other saltwater species.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target species
was muskellunge.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target species
was northern pike or walleye.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target species
was largemouth bass or smallmouth bass.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target species
was trout in the Great Lakes region.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target species
was trout in states outside the Great Lakes region.
Units
(Range)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Mean
(Std. Dev.)
0.2711
(0.4451)
0.1100
(0.3133)
0.3350
(0.4726)
0.0051
(0.0714)
0.0077
(0.0874)
0.0486
(0.2153)
0.0205
(0.1418)
0.0281
(0.1656)
0.1611
(0.3681)
0.0179
(0.1328)
0.0997
(0.3000)
0.2276
(0.4198)
0.0026
(0.0506)
0.0307
(0.1727)
0.0358
(0.1860)
0.0128
(0.1125)
0.1253
(0.3315)
A5-15
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
Table A5-3: Variables and Descriptive Statistics for the Regression Model
Variable3
salmon ^pacific
salmon all Moreyc.
salmon GL
steelhead_pac
steelhead GLC
cr nonyear
Description
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target species
was salmon on the Pacific Coast.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target species
was salmon on the Atlantic Coast.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target species
was salmon in the Great Lakes.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target species
was steelhead on the Pacific Coast.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target species
was steelhead in the Great Lakes.
For studies that present catch rate on a per hour, per day, or
per trip basis, this variable represents the baseline catch rate
Units
(Range)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Fish per day
(0 to 14.0000)
Mean
(Std. Dev.)
0.0844
(0.2783)
0.0051
(0.0714)
0.0230
(0.1502)
0.0358
(0.1860)
0.0051
(0.0714)
2.1038b
(2.0403)
for the target species, expressed in fish per day or fish per
trip; otherwise this variable is set to zero. See text for
calculation details.
cr^year For studies that present catch rate on a per year basis, this
variable represents the baseline catch rate for the target
species, expressed in fish per year; otherwise this variable
is set to zero.
catch ^year Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the study
expressed catch rates on a per year basis.
spec_cr Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the study presents
information on the baseline catch rate.
shore Binary (dummy) variable indicating that all respondents in
the sample fished from shore.
Fish per year
(0 to 67.3800)
Binary variables
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
41.2277".
(24.7833)
0.0716
(0.2582)
0.8440
(0.3633)
0.1458
(0.3633)
a. The default variable values are:
*• A zero value for all of the study methodology variables (SP_conjoint, SP_dichot, TC_individual, TC_zonal,
RUM nested, and RUM nonnested) indicates that the study used a stated preference methodology with an
open-ended, iterative bidding, or payment card elicitation format.
*• A zero value for spjncril or spj/hone indicates that the study was a stated preference study administered in
person.
*• A zero value for nonlocal indicates that the survey included local anglers or a mix of local and nonlocal
anglers.
*• A zero value for all of the species variables indicates that the target species was panfish caught nationwide.
*• A zero value for shore indicates that survey respondents fished from boats or from both the shore and from
boats.
b These values represent mean values and standard deviations only for those observations in which the variable value
was specified. Zero values are suppressed for the purposes of calculating the mean and standard deviation.
°. An important qualification applies to the variables nonlocal, salmon_atlantic_Morey, big_game_pac, steelhead_GL,
and musky. These variables were judged to represent unique categories of angler and species characteristics, and as
such were included in the model. However, none of these variables represent more than three observations in the
meta-data. Hence, results associated with these variables should be interpreted with caution, given that these variables
might also capture study-level effects.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
A5-16
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
A5-3.2 Model and Results
a. Model
Past meta-analyses have incorporated a range of different statistical methods, with none universally accepted as
superior (e.g., Santos, 1998; Poole and Greenland, 1999; Poe et al., 2001; Bateman and Jones, 2003).
Nonetheless, there is general consensus that certain statistical issues should be addressed during model
development. For example, many researchers agree that models must somehow address potential correlation
among observations provided by like authors or studies and the related potential for heteroskedasticity
(Rosenberger and Loomis, 2000b; Bateman and Jones, 2003; Johnston et al., 2003). This meta-analysis model is
estimated following standard methods illustrated in the most recent literature, recognizing that there are some
areas in which the literature provides mixed guidance (e.g., the use of weighting).
EPA followed recent work by Bateman and Jones (2003) in applying a multilevel model specification to the meta-
data to address potential correlation among observations gathered from single studies. Multilevel (or hierarchical)
models may be estimated as either random-effects or random-coefficients models, and are described in detail
elsewhere (Goldstein, 1995; Singer, 1998). The fundamental distinction between these models and classical linear
models is the two-part modeling of the equation error to account for hierarchical data. Here, the meta-data are
comprised of multiple observations per valuation survey (i.e., all observations from studies that were based on a
common survey), and there is a corresponding possibility of correlated errors among observations that share a
common survey.6.
The common approach to modeling such potential correlation is to divide the residual variance of estimates into
two parts: a random error that is independently and identically distributed (iid) across all observations, and a
random effect that represents systematic variation related to each survey. The model is estimated as a two-level
hierarchy, with level one corresponding to marginal value per fish estimates (individual observations), and level
two corresponding to individual surveys. The random effect may be interpreted as a deviation from the mean
equation intercept associated with individual surveys (Bateman and Jones, 2003). The model is estimated using a
maximum likelihood estimator (MLE), based on the assumption that random effects are distributed multivariate
normal. Following the arguments of Bateman and Jones (2003), observations are unweighted. Also following
prior work (e.g., Smith and Osborne, 1996; Poe et al., 2001), covariances are obtained using the Huber-White
covariance estimator. As described by Smith and Osborne (1996, p. 293), "this approach treats each study as the
equivalent of a sample cluster with the potential for heteroskedasticity . . . across clusters" (Smith and Osborne,
1996).
Random effects models such as the multilevel model applied here are increasingly becoming standard in resource
economics applications, and are estimable using a variety of readily available software packages. For comparison,
models were also estimated using both ordinary least squares (OLS) and weighted least squares (WLS) with
robust variance estimation and multilevel models with standard (non-robust) variance estimation. Although the
OLS R2 value was somewhat belter than the illustrated model, the significance of the individual variable
coefficients was highest in the illustrated model.
As noted in section A5-3.1, the dependent variable in the regression is the log of WTP per fish, and the
independent variables are all linear, resulting in a semi-log functional form. This functional form has advantages
because of: (1) its fit to the data, (2) the intuitive results provided by the functional form, and (3) the common use
of this functional form in the meta-analysis literature (e.g., Smith and Osborne, 1996; Santos, 1998). While linear
forms are also common in the literature (Rosenberger and Loomis, 2000a,b; Poe et al., 2001; Bateman and Jones,
2003), specifications requiring more intensive data transformations (e.g., Box-Cox, log-log) are less common.
Given questions about a priori restrictions on the functional form, final decisions regarding functional forms were
made based on a combination of general principles and empirical performance. The semi-log model was chosen
6 EPA chose to group observations by valuation survey rather than by study or author because in a number of
cases, studies based on the same survey produce similar results, even if written by different authors.
A5-17
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
over the linear model based on the ability of the semi-log form to capture curvature in the valuation function and
its improved fit to the data. It also allows independent variables to influence WTP (after transformation from its
natural log) in a multiplicative rather than additive manner.
»J» A note on model specification
Following standard econometric practice, the final model is specified based on guidance from theory and prior
literature. For example, Arrow et al. (1993) make a fundamental distinction between discrete choice and open-
ended payment mechanisms (where open-ended include iterative bidding, payment cards, etc.). Hence, this is the
distinction made in the final model (i.e., including the variables SP_conjoint and SP_dichof). Similarly, other
methodology variables in the model were chosen based on theoretical considerations and prior findings in the
literature (e.g., nested RUM vs. non-nested RUM; mail surveys vs. phone vs. in-person surveys).
As is common in meta-analysis, some variables were excluded from the model because sufficient data were
incomplete or missing from most studies in the meta-data. For example, a variable characterizing the average
number of years respondents had been fishing was excluded because too few observations were available. Some
other variables were also excluded because of a clear lack of statistical significance in all estimated models. For
example, if there was no overriding theoretical or other rationale for retaining the variable in the model, and the
variable was clearly insignificant, EPA excluded the variable from the model. For example, variables representing
gender, survey size, and estimate size were dropped because they added no significant explanatory power to the
model. However, certain variables were retained in the model for theoretical reasons, even if significance levels
were low. Such specification of meta-analysis models using a combination of theoretical guidance and empirical
considerations is standard in modeling efforts.
b. Results
Table A5-4 presents the results of the model.
A5-18
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
Table
Variable
Intercept
SP_conjoint
SP_dichot
TC_individual
TC_zonal
RUM_nest
RUM_nonnest
sp_year
tc_year
RUM_year
sp_mail
sp_phone
high_resp_rate
inc_thou
age42_down
age43_up
trips 19_down
trips20_up
nonlocal
big_game_pac
big_game_natl
big_game_satl
small_game_pac
small_game_atl
flatfish_pac
flatfish_atl
other_sw
musky
pike_walleye
bass_fw
trout_GL
trout_nonGL
salmon_pacific
salmon_atl_morey
salmon_GL
steelhead_pac
steelhead_GL
cr_nonyear
cr_year
A5-4: Estimated Multilevel
Parameter Estimate
-1.4568
-1.1672
-0.9958
1.1091
2.0480
1.3324
1.7892
0.08754
-0.03965
-0.00291
0.5440
1.0859
-0.6539
0.003872
0.9206
1.2221
0.8392
-1.0112
3.2355
2.2530
1.5323
2.3821
1.6227
1.4099
1.8909
1.3797
0.7339
3.8671
1.0412
1.7780
1.8723
0.8632
2.3570
5.2689
2.2135
2.1904
2.3393
-0.08135
-0.05208
Model Results: Marginal
Standard Error
1.0284
0.3973
0.2455
0.5960
0.6444
0.6377
0.6131
0.02588
0.03187
0.01948
0.4608
0.4098
0.2779
0.01398
0.2612
0.2369
0.2230
0.4381
0.4666
0.4048
0.4544
0.5356
0.3488
0.7094
0.4826
0.3373
0.3902
0.3507
0.3469
0.4301
0.2620
0.3034
0.4205
0.4100
0.2722
0.5635
0.2198
0.06810
0.01451
Value per Fish
t Value
-1.42
-2.94
-4.06
1.86
3.18
2.09
2.92
3.38
-1.24
-0.15
1.18
2.65
-2.35
0.28
3.52
5.16
3.76
-2.31
6.93
5.57
3.37
4.45
4.65
1.99
3.92
4.09
1.88
11.03
3.00
4.13
7.15
2.84
5.60
12.85
8.13
3.89
10.64
-1.19
-3.59
Prob>|t|
0.1663
0.0035
0.0001
0.0637
0.0016
0.0375
0.0038
0.0008
0.2144
0.8814
0.2386
0.0084
0.0192
0.7820
0.0005
0.0001
0.0002
0.0216
0.0001
0.0001
0.0008
0.0001
0.0001
0.0477
0.0001
0.0001
0.0609
0.0001
0.0029
0.0001
0.0001
0.0047
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.2331
0.0004
A5-19
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
Table
Variable
catch_year
spec_cr
shore
-2 log likelihood
Chi-square for test of
random effects
Prob>Chi-square
A5-4: Estimated Multilevel
Parameter Estimate
1.2693
0.6862
-0.1129
Full Model
946.0
0.0000
1.000
Model Results: Marginal Value per Fish
Standard Error t Value
0.4888 2.60
0.2323 2.95
0.1299 -0.87
Random Effects
1227.0
281.0
0.0001
Prob>|t|
0.0098
0.0034
0.3854
Covariance factors:
Study level (o.u.)
Residual (o.e)
1.25 * 10:19
0.6581
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
A5-3.3 Interpretation of Regression Analysis Results
The analysis finds both statistically significant and intuitive patterns that influence marginal WTP for catching an
additional fish. In general, the statistical fit of the equation is good; there is a strong systematic element to WTP
variation that allows forecasting of WTP based on species and study characteristics. The model as a whole is
statistically significant at p<0.0005. Of the 41 independent variables in the model (not including the intercept), 35
are statistically significant at the 10% level, and most of those are statistically significant at the 1% level. Signs of
significant parameter estimates generally correspond with intuition, where prior expectations exist. As shown in
Table A5-4, the random effects are not statistically significant, indicating that study level heterogeneity does not
have a statistically significant impact on the model.
a. Source study methodology effects
Twelve variables characterize source study methodology. Many of these variables have coefficients that are
consistent with prior expectations of sign and relative magnitude. Others have results that are less intuitively
clear. For example, interpretation of the parameter estimates of the year variables is not straightforward. Model
results show that the tc_year and RUM_year both have negative but insignificant parameter estimates. These
insignificant parameter estimates may indicate that study year has no significant impact on estimated WTP.
Alternatively, it may result from a lack of variability in the meta-data for certain variables (e.g., tc^year) or from
correlation with other model variables. Of slightly more concern is the parameter estimate for sp_year, which is
positive and significant. This finding is consistent with the hypothesis that real WTP increases over time due to
changes in angler experiences, preferences, or purchasing power (Rosenberger and Loomis, 2000a). However, it
contradicts the expectation that advances in stated preference survey design over time have led to more
conservative WTP estimates (Arrow et al., 1993; Johnston et al, 2003).
Of the revealed preference methodology variables, TCjndividual has the smallest coefficient, followed by
RUM nest, RUM nonnest, and TC_zonal. Although theory does not provide unambiguous guidance regarding
expected magnitude of these variables, nested RUM models account for substitution effects across different fish
species. Hence, one might expect these models to produce lower WTP values per fish compared to the non-nested
RUM models and travel cost models. Given that random utility models explicitly take into account the presence
of substitute sites, they might also be expected to produce lower WTP estimates for accessing a given recreational
site compared to the travel cost models. However, there is no clear theoretical reason to expect non-nested RUM
models to produce lower WTP per marginal fish compared to individual (non-RUM) travel cost models.
A5-20
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
The stated preference dummy variables (SP_conjoint, SP_dichot, and the default value, SP_other) have much
lower coefficients than the travel cost and random utility model variables. This finding is consistent with past
research by Cameron (1992) and others, who demonstrate that stated preference methods can produce lower
estimates of direct use values for the same quality change than revealed preference methods. However,
interpretation of the methodology variables associated with the stated preference approaches is confounded by the
large positive coefficient on sp_year, which indicates that among more recent studies, revealed preference
methods may produce higher estimates of WTP per additional fish.
Of the remaining three methodology variables, two are significant. The variable sp_phone has a significantly
positive coefficient, indicating that phone interview methods tend to yield higher WTP values than in-person
interview methods. The variable spjnail was retained in the meta-analysis for theoretical reasons, despite its lack
of statistical significance. The parameter estimate of the binary variable high_response_rate is negative and
significant (p<0.05), a finding consistent with prior expectations.
b. Sample characteristics effects
Six variables characterize demographic and economic attributes. Five of the associated parameter estimates are
statistically significant at p<0.05, and most have expected signs.
Model results show that respondents with higher incomes (inc_thou) are willing to pay more to catch an
additional fish per trip — an expected result. The parameter estimate on age42_down is less than the parameter
estimate on age43_up, suggesting that older anglers may be willing to pay more to catch an additional fish.
Insofar as age is correlated with income, the difference between these variables may be capturing the effects of
increased angler income. However, this result is not entirely intuitive, since older anglers may have more
experience and are therefore likely to have better success rates. Thus, they might not be willing to pay as much to
catch additional fish, due to diminishing marginal WTP per fish caught.
The parameter estimate for trips!9_down is much larger than the parameter estimate for trips20_up, indicating
that anglers who take more fishing trips per year (and who presumably catch more fish during the fishing season)
have lower marginal values per fish than anglers who take fewer trips per year. This is not surprising, since
catching an additional fish during a single trip increases total seasonal catch for avid anglers by a smaller
percentage than for anglers who fish less often. Moreover, those taking a greater number of trips, and presumably
catching more fish, might be expected to have a somewhat diminished WTP for an additional fish, again based on
the concept of diminishing marginal utility.
The parameter estimate for the nonlocal variable is positive and significant (p<0.0001) indicating that anglers
who travel out of state to fish are willing to pay much more to catch additional fish than local residents. However,
this effect should be interpreted in the context of the underlying data. This variable is based on only two
observations and reflects values of anglers who travel long distances (e.g., visit Alaska) to their fishing
destinations..7 Hence, EPA suggests that results for this variable may not be readily generalizable.
c. Species targeted effects
The model includes 18 binary variables that characterize the target species and region in which the species was
targeted. All but one of these variables have coefficients that are significant at p<0.05. The variables can be
divided into three general groups: marine species, freshwater species, and salmonoids. In general, the sign and
magnitude of the coefficients of most of the variables are consistent with prior expectations regarding both the
relative worth of different species and the relative worth of individual species in different geographic regions.
However, unlike other variables, these expectations are based on existing literature, prior empirical results, and
anecdotal evidence, rather than economic theory.
7 In alternative model specifications, EPA was not able to find a statistically significant difference between the
variables local (representing survey samples that included only local residents) and local_nonlocal (representing survey
samples that included a mix of local and nonlocal residents).
A5-21
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
Of the marine species variables, big_game_pac and big_game_satl have the largest magnitude. Big_game_natl
has a somewhat lower coefficient, which is likely due to a somewhat different species composition in the big
game category in the North Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic regions. Small_game_atl has a slightly smaller coefficient
than small_game_pac, andflatfish_atl has a lower coefficient thanflatfish_pac, but these differences are not
statistically significant. As expected, the other_sw variable, which includes bottomfish, smelt, grunion, and other
miscellaneous saltwater species, has a relatively small coefficient compared to the other marine species.
Results for the freshwater variables also meet prior expectations. Among warmwater species, musky has the
highest coefficient, followed by trout GL and bassjw. These results are expected, given that muskellunge are
relatively rare and generally grow much larger than other fish in the pike family (pike_walleye), and trout caught
in the Great Lakes are often much larger than trout caught in smaller rivers and lakes (trout_nonGL). The default
value for the regression ispanftsh, which includes species such as catfish, and perch. Regression results indicate
that the value of catching an additional fish of these species is significantly lower than the other species.
The coefficients of the salmon and steelhead variables are fairly large. These findings are consistent with the
popularity of salmonoids as game fish. Salmon_atlantic_Morey has a very large coefficient, but this variable is
based on observations from only one study — hence results for this variable should be interpreted accordingly..8.
Salmon_GL has a lower coefficient than salmon jpaclfic, which is consistent with the larger size of Pacific
salmon. Steelhead_GL has a slightly higher coefficient than either steelhead_pac or salmon_GL.
d. Angling characteristics
The angling characteristics variables include two catch rate variables (cr_nonyear and cr_year), two dummy
variable indicating whether catch rates were specified (spec_cr) and what units were used (catch^ear), and a
fishing mode variable (shore). The negative parameter estimates on both cr_nonyear and cr_year indicate that
anglers' WTP for catching an additional fish per trip decreases as the number offish already caught increases.9.
This result is consistent with both economic theory and prior expectations. The parameter estimate on the shore
variable is negative but insignificant.
e. Model limitations
Although the meta-analysis results presented in the previous section indicate that the model's statistical fit is quite
good, EPA notes that there are a number of limitations and uncertainties involved in the estimation and results of
the model. These limitations stem largely from the quality and quantity of information available from the original
studies, and from the statistical methods used to estimate the model.
First of all, regardless of the explanatory power of the meta-analysis regression equation, the model is only as
good as the data upon which it is based. EPA believes that WTP per fish estimates from the 24 peer-reviewed
journal articles are based on careful, high quality research. The data set also includes estimates from 24 reports,
dissertations, academic working papers, and books, which may or may not be subject to the same academic
scrutiny and quality standards. Nonetheless, based on EPA's review of these documents, the Agency believes that
all of the estimates included in the data set are of reasonable academic quality.
Another limitation of the data is that some demographic and other variables are present for only a subset of the
meta-observations. For example, the variables age and trips have a large number of missing observations,
indicating that the original studies do not always provide detailed demographic data. By specifying variables to
indicate missing observations (missing observations are indicated by zero values for both age42_down and
age43_up, and for both trips 19_down and trips20_up), EPA was able to control for the missing data. This
8 The study was based on Atlantic salmon fishing in Maine in 1988. Angling for Atlantic salmon is currently
illegal in Maine (MaineToday.com, 2003).
9 Although cr_nonyear lacks significance (p<0.32), this variable is consistently negative across a variety of model
specifications.
A5-22
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
specification presumes that a fixed shift in intercept (i.e., using a dummy variable) is sufficient to control for
systematic differences associated with the lack of data for specific variables — an unverifiable assumption.
Moreover, the significance of these variables would be clearer if more observations were available.
A third limitation of the data, related to variable specification, is the imperfect match between the aggregate
species variables specified in the model and the species evaluated in each individual study. Although in most
cases the match was good, some studies provided WTP per fish estimates for very broad categories of species,
such as "bottomfish (flounder family, cod family, snapper, grouper, jack, grunt, sea bass, porgy, wreckfish)"
(Schuhmann, 1998). EPA assigned these estimates to the aggregate species group variable that most closely
matched the largest number of species from the list provided in the study, but the Agency acknowledges that this
process introduces uncertainty into the analysis.
Another source of uncertainty related to the species groupings is that creating variables for aggregate species
groups reduces the precision of the resulting benefit estimates. By aggregating species into categories, EPA was
able to improve the fit of the meta-analysis model, but this aggregation also results in a lower level of detail in the
values that can be predicted. In particular, the panfish, other saltwater, and big game categories include relatively
diverse species.
Model results are also subject to choices regarding functional form and statistical approach, although many of the
primary model effects are robust to reasonable changes in functional form and/or statistical methods. The
rationale for the specific functional form and model structure chosen is detailed above in section A5-3.2a. In
general, meta-analysis may provide a superior alternative to the calculation and use of a simple arithmetic mean,
as it allows WTP to be adjusted to account for the characteristics of the transfer site. The model's ability to adjust
WTP appropriately is suggested by the many systematic (statistically significant) patterns revealed by the meta-
analysis regression. Nonetheless, the use and interpretation of meta-analysis models for benefit transfer, and the
use of benefit transfer in general, are subject to the constraints and concerns expressed elsewhere in the literature
(e.g., Desvousges et al., 1998; Poe et al., 2001; Vandenberg et al, 2001).
A5-4 Application of the Meta-Analysis Results to the Analysis of Recreational Benefits of
the Section 316(b) Regulatory Analysis Options for Phase III Facilities
The results of the meta-analysis in conjunction with information specific to the resource users and populations of
species that will benefit from reduced I&E can be used to estimate the recreational welfare gain associated with
the section 316(b) regulatory analysis options for Phase III facilities. This analysis involves the following steps:
>• estimating the marginal recreational value per fish for each species affected by each respective analysis
option in each region;
>• calculating the recreational fishing benefits from eliminating baseline I&E losses, by multiplying the
marginal value per fish by the number of recreational fish currently lost to I&E that would otherwise be
caught by recreational anglers; and
>• calculating the recreational fishing benefits from the regulatory analysis options for Phase III facilities, by
multiplying the marginal value per fish by the number of additional fish that would be caught by
recreational anglers because of reduced I&E losses of recreational fish.
A5-4.1 Estimating Marginal Value per Fish
EPA used the estimated meta-regression to estimate marginal values per fish for the species affected by I&E at
Phase III facilities. To calculate the marginal value per fish for the affected species, EPA chose input values for
the independent variables based on the affected species characteristics, study regions, and demographic
characteristics of the affected angling populations. The study design variables were selected based on current
economic literature. Table A5-5 summarizes the input values for each of the variables in the model.
A5-23
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
Table A5-5: Independent Variable Assignments for Regression Equation
Variable
Intercept
SP_conjoint
SP_dichot
TC_individual
TC_zonal
RUM_nest
RUM_nonnest
sp_year
tc_year
RUM_year
sp_mail
sp_phone
high_resp_rate
inc_thou
age42_down
age43_up
trips 19_down
trips20_up
nonlocal
big_game_pac
big_game_natl
big_game_satl
small_game_pac
small_game_atl
flatfish_pac
flatfish_atl
other_sw
musky
pike_walleye
bass_fw
trout_GL
trout_nonGL
salmon_pacific
salmon_atl_morey
salmon_GL
steelhead_pac
steelhead_GL
Coefficient
-1.4568
-1.1672
-0.9958
1.1091
2.0480
1.3324
1.7892
0.08754
-0.03965
-0.00291
0.5440
1.0859
-0.6539
0.003872
0.9206
1.2221
0.8392
-1.0112
3.2355
2.2530
1.5323
2.3821
1.6227
1.4099
1.8909
1.3797
0.7339
3.8671
1.0412
1.7780
1.8723
0.8632
2.3570
5.2689
2.2135
2.1904
2.3393
Assigned Value
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
24
0
0
1
Varies
0.0972
0.2711
0.1100
0.3350
0
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Explanation
The equation intercept was set to one by default.
Current academic literature suggests that nested
RUM models produce the most accurate valuation
results, so RUM nest was set to one, and the other
study methodology variables were set to zero
Because more recent studies are expected to be more
accurate, RUM^year was set equal to 24 (equivalent
2000 minus 1976).
Since RUM nest was the model specified above,
sp mail and spjyhone were set to zero.
High survey response rates are desirable because
they may provide more accurate estimates, so
high response rate was set to one.
Inc thou was set to the median household income for
each study region evaluated, based on U.S. Census
data.
Age42 down and age 43 up were set to their sample
means.
Tripsl9 down and trips20 up were set to their
sample means.
Because the default (zero) value for the nonlocal
dummy variable represents a combination of local
and nonlocal anglers, nonlocal was set to zero.
Species targeted variables were assigned input values
based on characteristics of the species affected by
l&h and the study region. In general, the match
between the affected species and the variables in the
meta-analysis equation was good.
A5-24
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
Variable
cr nonyear
cr_year
catch_year
spec_cr
shore
Source: U.S. EPA
Table A5-5: Independent
Variable
Assignments for Regression Equation
Coefficient Assigned Value Explanation
-0.08135
-0.05208
1.2693
0.6862
-0.1129
analysis for this report.
Varies
0
0
1
Varies
The variable cr nonyear was assigned species and
region-specific values for the coastal and Great
Lakes regions based on calch rales dala provided by
NMFS (2002d 2003c) and MDNR (2002) For the
Inland region, EPA assigned values to the
cr nonyear variable based on the average values for
each species from the studies. The variable spec cr
was set to one. Cr^year and catch^year were set to
zero, since catch per trip and catch per day are more
common measures of angling quality.
Shore was assigned values based on NMFS (2002d,
2003c) and FWS (U.S. DOI and U.S. DOC, 2002)
survey data indicating the average percentage of
anglers who fish from shore in each region.
Table A5-6 presents region- and species-specific values for the input variables that vary across regions.
Table
A5-6: Region- and
Variable
inc thou
shore
Species
Small gameb
Flatfish0
Other saltwater
Salmon
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfishd
Trout
Unidentified
Species Type
Dummy
Variable3
small game all,
small gamejyac
flatfish_atl,
flatfishjyac
other sw
salmon GL
pike walleye
bass^fw
Species-Specific Variable Assignments for
California
54.385
24.0
North
Atlantic
55.000
24.0
Baseline Catch
2.7
1.3
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.0
1.7
1.7
Mid-
Atlantic
51.846
23.1
Region
South
Atlantic
40.730
30.0
Regression
Gulf of
Mexico
36.641
25.0
Rate, Expressed in Fish per Day
1.6
1.0
1.7
4.7
1.7
2.2
1.5
1.7
1.7
2.2
1.7
1.9
Equation
Great
Lakes
44.519
48.0
Inland
58.
240
57.0
(cr nonyear)
0.2
0.8
0.2
4.7
3.2
1.9
2
0
0
4
3
3
.1
.8
.2
.7
.2
.8
a. This column indicates which species type dummy variable was set to one to represent each species.
b For small game in the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Inland regions,
small_game_atl was set to one. For small game in the California region, small_gamejyac was set to one.
°. For flatfish in the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, and Inland regions,
flatfish_atl was set to one. For flatfish in the California region, flatfishjyac was set to one.
d To indicate that the target species was panfish, all species type dummy variables were set to zero.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
A5-25
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
EPA decided not to include the error term when using the regression equation to predict marginal values per fish.
Bockstael and Strand (1987) argue that if the source of econometric error in an equation is primarily due to
omitted variables, the error term should be included, but if the error is primarily due to random preferences, it
should be excluded. Because the error term is positive, the empirical effect of including this term is to increase the
predicted marginal values. Therefore, EPA's approach results in more conservative estimates. The Agency also
notes that when the error term is excluded, the values predicted by the regression equation are more consistent
with those from the underlying studies.
Table A5-7 presents the estimated marginal value per fish for all species that were affected by I&E in each region.
Table A5-7: Marginal Recreational Value
Species
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Salmon
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Trout
Unidentified
California
$6.11
$8.22
$2.49
$2.61
North
Atlantic
$5.00
$5.02
$2.51
$2.53
Mid-Atlantic
$4.97
$4.73
$2.46
$0.89
$2.73
per Fish, by Region and
South
Atlantic
$4.82
$4.73
$2.40
$2.41
Gulf of
Mexico
$4.74
$2.34
$3.08
Species8
Great
Lakes
$11.17
$3.46
$7.21
$1.12
$7.94
$5.24
Inland
$4.51
$3.45
$7.59
$0.89
$2.38
$1.88
a. All values are in 2004$.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
A5-4.2 Calculating Recreational Benefits
EPA estimated the recreational welfare gain from eliminating current I&E losses and the recreational welfare gain
from the regulatory analysis options by combining estimates of the marginal value per fish with estimates of the
baseline level of I&E and the reduction in recreational fishing losses from I&E attributable to each analysis
option. To calculate the recreational welfare gain from eliminating current I&E losses, EPA multiplied the
marginal value per fish by the number of fish that are currently lost due to I&E that would otherwise be caught by
recreational anglers. To calculate the recreational welfare gain from each analysis option, EPA multiplied the
marginal value per fish by the additional number of fish caught by recreational anglers that would have been
impinged or entrained in the absence of the regulation. In these calculations, recreational fish losses are expressed
as the number of mature, catchable adults, not as age-1 equivalents so as to not overstate the increase in catch.
The results of these calculations are presented in detail in Chapters B4 through H4 of this report.
A5-5 Limitations and Uncertainties
A number of issues are common to all benefit transfers. Benefit transfer involves adapting research conducted for
another purpose to address the policy questions at hand. Because benefits analysis of environmental regulations
rarely affords sufficient time to develop original stated preference surveys that are specific to the policy effects,
benefit transfer is often the only option to inform a policy decision. Specific issues associated with the estimated
regression model and the underlying studies are discussed in section A5-3.3. Additional limitations and
uncertainties associated with implementation of the meta-analysis approach are addressed below.
A5-26
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
A5-5.1 Sensitivity Analysis Based on Krinsky and Robb (1986) Approach
The meta-analysis model presented above can be used to predict mean WTP for catching an additional fish.
However, estimates derived from regression models are subject to some degree of error and uncertainty. To better
characterize the uncertainty or error bounds around predicted WTP, EPA adapted the statistical procedure
described by Krinsky and Robb in their 1986 Review of Economics and Statistics paper "Approximating the
Statistical Property of Elasticities." The procedure involves sampling from the variance-covariance matrix and
means of the estimated coefficients, both of which are standard output from the statistical package used to
estimate the meta-model. WTP values are then calculated for each drawing from the variance covariance matrix,
and an empirical distribution of WTP values is constructed. By varying the number of drawings, it is possible to
generate an empirical distribution with a desired degree of accuracy (Krinsky and Robb, 1986). The lower or
upper bound of WTP values can then be identified based on the 5th and 95th percentile of WTP values from the
empirical distribution. These bounds may help decision-makers understand the uncertainty associated with the
benefit results.
The results of EPA's calculations are shown in Table A5-8. The table presents 95% upper confidence bounds and
5% lower confidence bounds for the marginal value per fish for each species in each region. These bounds can be
used to estimate upper and lower confidence bounds for the welfare gain from eliminating baseline I&E losses or
reducing I&E losses under each regulatory analysis option. Refer to the regional recreational results chapters for
detail on the specific calculations.
Table A5-8: Confidence Bounds on Marginal Recreational Value per Fish, Based on
Krinsky and Robb Approach"
the
Species
California
North
Atlantic
South Gulf of
Mid-Atlantic Atlantic Mexico
5% Lower Confidence
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Salmon
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Trout
Unidentified
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Salmon
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Trout
Unidentified
$3.34
$3.93
$1.31
$1.37
$11.16
$16.94
$4.75
$5.00
$1.58
$2.91
$1.31
$1.32
95%
$15.52
$8.70
$4.82
$4.86
$1.67
$2.80
$1.34
$0.48
$1.39
Upper Confidence
$14.55
$8.07
$4.54
$1.63
$5.58
Bounds'5
$1.96 $2.05
$2.91
$1.48 $1.46
$1.49 $1.64
Bounds'5
$11.60 $10.79
$7.68
$3.91 $3.77
$3.95 $5.94
Great
Lakes
$8.42
$2.12
$4.90
$0.74
$5.87
$3.59
$14.83
$5.69
$10.64
$1.72
$10.79
$7.68
Inland
$1.19
$1.85
$4.45
$0.48
$1.22
$1.05
$16.82
$6.51
$12.96
$1.63
$4.62
$3.36
a. All values are in 2004$.
b Upper and lower confidence bounds based on results of the Krinsky and Robb (1986) approach.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
A5-27
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
A5-5.2 Variable Assignments for Independent Regressors
The per fish values estimated from the model depend on the values of the input variables in the meta-analysis.
EPA assigned values to the input variables based on established economic theory and characteristics of the
affected species and regions. However, because the input values for some variables are uncertain, the resulting per
fish values and benefits estimates also include some degree of uncertainty.
A5-5.3 Other Limitations and Uncertainties
In addition to the limitations and uncertainties involved with the study data and model estimation, which are
discussed in section A5-3.3e, there are limitations and uncertainties involved with the calculation of per fish
values from the model, and with the use of those values to estimate the welfare gain resulting from the regulatory
analysis options considered for the 316(b) regulation.
The validity and reliability of benefit transfer — including that based on meta-analysis — depends on a variety of
factors. While benefit transfer can provide valid measures of use benefits, tests of its performance have provided
mixed results (e.g., Desvousges et al., 1998; Vandenberg et al., 2001; Smith et al., 2002). Nonetheless, benefit
transfers are increasingly applied as a core component of benefit cost analyses conducted by EPA and other
government agencies (Bergstrom and De Civita, 1999; Griffiths, Undated). Smith et al. (2002, p. 134) state that
"nearly all benefit cost analyses rely on benefit transfers, whether they acknowledge it or not." Given the
increasing [or as Smith et al. (2002) might argue, universal] use of benefit transfers, an increasing focus is on the
empirical properties of applied transfer methods and models.
An important factor in any benefit transfer is the ability of the study site or estimated valuation equation to
approximate the resource and context under which benefit estimates are desired. As is common, the meta-analysis
model presented here provides a close but not perfect match to the context in which values are desired. For
example, although most of the Inland studies take place in the Great Lakes region, the "50 MGD All
Waterbodies" option affects sites all across the Inland region. However, EPA believes that regional differences in
per fish values for specific Inland species are relatively small.
The final area of uncertainty related to the use of the regression results to calculate regulatory benefits is
uncertainty in the estimates of I&E. There are a number of reasons why recreational losses due to I&E may be
higher or lower than expected. Projected changes in recreational catch may be underestimated because cumulative
impacts of I&E overtime are not considered. In particular, I&E estimates include only individuals directly lost to
I&E, not their progeny. Additionally, the interaction of I&E with other stressors may have either a positive or
negative effect on recreational catch. Finally, in estimating recreational fishery losses, EPA used I&E data
provided by facilities, which in some case are more than 20 years old. While EPA used the most current data
available, they may not reflect current conditions.
A5-28
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A6
Chapter A6: Qualitative Assessment of
Non-Use Benefits
Introduction
Chapter Contents
Comprehensive estimates of total resource value
A6-1 Public Policy Significance of Ecological
Improvements from the Regulatory
Analysis Options for Phase III Facilities A6-2
A6-1.1 Effects on Depleted Fish
Populations A6-2
A6-1.2 Ecosystem Effects A6-5
include both use and non-use values, such that the
resulting total value estimates may be compared to
total social cost. "Non-use values, like use values,
have their basis in the theory of individual
preferences and the measurement of welfare changes.
According to theory, use values and non-use values
are additive" (Freeman, 1993)..1. Therefore, use
values alone may understate total social values.
Recent economic literature provides substantial support for the hypothesis that non-use values are greater than
zero. Moreover, when small per capita non-use values are held by a substantial fraction of the population, they
can be very large in the aggregate. While the general proposition is true, in this specific context we have not been
able to determine the magnitude of non-use values. Both EPA's own Guidelines to for Preparing Economic
Analysis and OMB's Circular A-4, governing Regulatory Analysis, support the need to assessing non-use values
(U.S. EPA, 2000a; U.S. OMB, 2003).
Given that aquatic species without any direct uses account for a large portion of cooling water intake structure
losses, a comprehensive estimate of the welfare gain from reduced impingement and entrainment (I&E) losses
should include an estimate of non-use benefits.2 Stated preference methods, or benefit transfers based on stated
preference studies, are the generally accepted techniques for estimating non-use values. Stated preference
methods rely on surveys that assess individuals' stated willingness-to-pay (WTP) for specific ecological
improvements, such as increased protection of fishery resources.
EPA attempted to measure non-use benefits in monetary terms, as suggested by EPA's own guidance and OMB's
Circular A-4 (U.S. EPA, 2000a; U.S. OMB, 2003). Using the benefit transfer technique requires adequate
empirical valuation studies. No empirical studies were found that estimated non-use values for impacts on fish
alone. Thus, EPA needed to pursue developing a stated preference survey. EPA began designing a stated
preference survey to separately estimate total value (including non-use value) offish impacts when work on this
rule began. EPA received OMB approval in August 2005, of an Information Collection Request to conduct focus
groups for survey design (see docket EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0020). EPA designed a survey, and conducted an
external peer review of the survey instrument and analysis plan, completed in February 2006 (Versar, 2006). Peer
reviewers provided suggestions to improve the reliability of the results. To make those recommended changes,
receive OMB approval for the changes, then conduct the revised survey, and analyze the results would likely have
take several months. Owing to the June 1, 2006 Consent Decree deadline, these suggestions could not be
incorporated in time for today's action. For more details on development of the survey, see memorandum entitled
"Development of Willingness to Pay Survey Instrument for Section 316(b) Phase III Cooling Water Intake
Structures" (Abt Associates, 2006; DCN 9-4826).
1 According to Freeman (1993), this additive property holds under traditional conditions related to resource levels
and prices for substitute goods in the household production model.
For detail on the number and percentage offish directly valued, see section A3-4.1 of this report.
A6-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A6
To assess the public policy significance or importance of the ecological gains from the regulatory analysis options
considered for the final regulation for Phase III facilities, EPA collected and developed relevant information to
enable the Agency to consider non-use benefits qualitatively. This assessment is discussed below.
A6-1 Public Policy Significance of Ecological Improvements from the Regulatory
Analysis Options for Phase III Facilities
Changes in cooling water intake system (CWIS) design or operations resulting from the section 316(b) regulations
for Phase III facilities would be expected to reduce I&E losses offish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms and,
as a result, would increase the numbers of individuals present and benefit local and regional fishery populations.
Depending on the nature of the reduced losses and on the conditions at the site, this may ultimately contribute to
the enhanced environmental functioning of affected waterbodies and associated ecosystems. Specific ecological
benefits that may occur due to enhanced environmental functioning of affected waterbodies resulting from the
regulatory analysis options considered for Phase III facilities are described in sections A6-1.1 and A6-1.2.
A6-1.1 Effects on Depleted Fish Populations
EPA believes that reducing fish mortality from I&E would contribute to the health and sustainability of the
affected fish populations by lowering the overall level of mortality for these populations. Fish populations suffer
from numerous sources of mortality; some are natural and others are anthropogenic. Natural sources include
weather, predation by other fish, and the availability of food. Human impacts that affect fish populations include
fishing, pollution, habitat changes, and I&E losses at CWIS. Fish populations decline when they are unable to
sufficiently compensate for their overall level of mortality. Lowering the overall mortality level increases the
probability that a population will be able to compensate for mortality at a level sufficient to maintain the long-
term health of the population. In some cases, I&E losses may be a significant source of anthropogenic mortality to
depleted fish stocks. For example, damaged saltwater fish stocks affected by I&E include winter flounder, red
drum, and rockfishes (NMFS, 2003b). I&E also affects species native to the Great Lakes such as lake whitefish
and yellow perch whose populations have dramatically declined in recent years (Wisconsin DNR, 2003;
U.S. DOI, 2004). See Table A6-1, below, for more information regarding the status of depleted marine,
nonsalmonid, stocks.
The public importance of restoring healthy fisheries and of achieving recovery of depleted fish stocks is reflected
in actions taken by the Federal and State Agencies to reduce fishing pressure on these fish stocks. Actions taken
by the Federal and regional government agencies include buying fishing licenses and fishing vessels at substantial
public expense and imposing restrictions on commercial and recreational catch. Fishing restrictions impose
limitations on those who make a living from fishing or participate in recreational fishing. Another example of the
public value of fishery resources is a large-scale ecosystem restoration program that includes the native species
recovery in the Great Lakes Basin (U.S. DOI, 2004).3.
The Agency believes that reducing fish mortality from I&E along with other measures would contribute to
recovery of damaged fish populations.
Habitat restoration activities can be targeted to achieve ecological benefits at either the community or individual
species level and are critical for preserving aquatic biodiversity throughout the Great Lakes.
A6-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A6
Table A6-1: Depleted Marine, Nonsalmonid,
Stock or Stock Complex
American shad
Atlantic sturgeon
River herring
Weakfish
Red drum
King mackerel
Bluefish
Black sea bass
Butterfish
Summer flounder
Scup
Barndoor skate
Cod — Georges Bank
Cod — Gulf of Maine
Pollock
Silver hake — Southern Georges Bank/ Middle Atlantic
Thorny skate
Windowpane flounder — Southern New England/Middle Atlantic
Winter flounder — Georges Bank
Winter flounder — Southern New England/Middle Atlantic
Yellowtail flounder — Cape Cod/Maine
Yellowtail flounder — Georges Bank
Yellowtail flounder — Southern New England/Middle Atlantic
Black rockfish — north
Canary rockfish
Darkblotched rockfish
Shortspine thornyhead
Overfishing?3
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
?
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
NMFS-Managed Fish Stocks Subject to I&E
Overfished?b
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Approaching
Overfished?c
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N
N
N
N/A
N
N/A
N
N/A
N/A
N
N
N/A
N/A
N
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N
N/A
N/A
N
Rebuilding from
a Depleted State?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Stock Region
Atlantic stock
Atlantic stock
Atlantic stock
Atlantic stock
Gulf of Mexico stock
Gulf of Mexico stock
Mid-Atlantic stock
Mid-Atlantic stock
Mid-Atlantic stock
Mid- Atlantic stock
Mid-Atlantic stock
New England FMC stock
New England FMC stock
New England FMC stock
New England FMC stock
New England FMC Stock
New England FMC stock
New England FMC stock
New England FMC stock
New England FMC stock
New England FMC stock
New England FMC stock
New England FMC stock
Pacific stock
Pacific stock
Pacific stock
Pacific stock
A6-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A6
Table A6-1: Depleted Marine, Nonsalmonid,
Stock or Stock Complex
Widow rockfish
Yelloweye rockfish
Yellowtail rockfish
Black sea bass
Red drum
Overfishing?3
N
N
N
Y
Y
NMFS-Managed Fish Stocks Subject to I&E
Overfished?b
N
Y
N
Y
?
Approaching
Overfished?c
N
N/A
N
N/A
N/A
Rebuilding from
a Depleted State?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Stock Region
Pacific stock
Pacific stock
Pacific stock
South Atlantic stock
South Atlantic stock
a Is the stock currently experiencing fishing at an unsustainable level?
b Is the stock overfished (i.e., is it depleted below 20% of historical unfished levels)?
°. Is it estimated that the stock will reach an overfished condition within 2 years (by the 4th quarter of 2007)?
Source: NOAA, 2005.
A6-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A6
A6-1.2 Ecosystem Effects
The aquatic resources affected by cooling water intake structures provide a wide range of services. Ecosystem
services are the physical, chemical, and biological functions performed by natural resources and the human
benefits derived from those functions, including both ecological and human use services (Daily, 1997; Daily
et al., 1997). Scientific and public interest in protecting ecosystem services is increasing with the recognition that
these services are vulnerable to a wide range of human activities and are difficult, if not impossible, to replace
with human technologies (Meffe, 1992).
In addition to their importance in providing food and other goods of direct use to humans, the organisms lost to
I&E may be critical to the continued functioning of the ecosystems of which they are a part. Fish are essential for
energy transfer in aquatic food webs (Summers, 1989), regulation of food web structure, nutrient cycling,
maintenance of sediment processes, redistribution of bottom substrates, regulation of carbon fluxes from water to
the atmosphere, and maintenance of aquatic biodiversity (Peterson and Lubchenco, 1997; Postel and Carpenter,
1997; Holmlund and Hammer, 1999; Wilson and Carpenter, 1999). Examples of ecological services that may be
disrupted by I&E include:
>• decreased numbers of ecological keystone, rare, sensitive, or threatened and endangered species;
>• decreased numbers of popular commercial and recreational fish species that are not fished, perhaps
because the fishery is closed;
>• increased numbers of exotic or disruptive species that compete well in the absence of species lost to I&E
(I&E may also help remove some exotic or disruptive organisms);
>• disruption of ecological niches and ecological strategies used by aquatic species;
>• disruption of energy transfer through the food web;
>• decreased local biodiversity;
>• disruption of predator-prey relationships;
>• disruption of age class structures of species; and
>• disruption of natural succession processes.
Many of these services can only be maintained by the continued presence of all life stages offish and other
aquatic species in their natural habitats. Reducing I&E losses could contribute to restoring (or preserving) the
biological integrity of the ecosystems of substantial national importance.
a. Effects on saltwater ecosystems
In the 1987 amendments to the CWA, Congress established the National Estuary Program because the "Nation's
estuaries are of great importance to fish and wildlife resources and recreation and economic opportunity. [, and to]
maintain the health and ecological integrity of these estuaries is in the national interest" (Water Quality Act,
1987). So far, there are 28 estuaries designated under the National Estuary Program (NEP). In addition, the largest
estuary in the United States, Chesapeake Bay, is protected under its own federally mandated program, separate
but related to NEP. Table A6-2 shows estuaries from which the sample Phase III facilities draw water. Of the
17 estuaries affected by the surveyed Phase III facilities, 12 are nationally significant estuaries designated under
NEP or the Chesapeake Bay Program. Nine, five, and seven of the 17 estuaries affected by the surveyed Phase III
facilities have facilities that would also be subject to technology requirements under the "50 MOD for All
Waterbodies" option, the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, and the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies"
option, respectively.
Substantial federal and state resources have been directed to NEP to enhance conservation of and knowledge
about the estuaries designated under this program. Since 1998, more than $95 million has been devoted to NEP to
benefit the health of the nationally significant estuaries (NEP, 2004; U.S. EPA, 2004c). These expenditures reflect
high public values for restoring (or protecting) the biological integrity of the ecosystems of substantial national
importance.
A6-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A6
Table A6-2: Estuaries Affected by Phase III Facilities
Designated
Under NEP or
Region
California
Estuaries Affected by Potentially
Regulated Phase III Facilities3
Honker Bay (San Francisco Bay)
Kaulakahi Channel
the Chesapeake
Bay Program15
"
50 MGD
All
200 MGD
All
100 MGD
CWB
North Atlantic San Pablo Bay (San Francisco Bay)
Boston Bay (Massachusetts Bays)
Fishers Island Sound (Long Island Sound)
Penobscot Bay
Mid-Atlantic Chesapeake Bay (Chesapeake Bay Program)
Delaware Bay (Delaware Estuary)
Fishing Bay (Chesapeake Bay Program)
Long Island Sound (Long Island Sound)
Newark Bay (New York/New Jersey Harbor)
Upper Bay (New York/New Jersey Harbor)
South Atlantic Savannah River Estuary
Gulf of Mexico Christmas Bay (Galveston Bay)
Galveston Bay (Galveston Bay)
Lavaca Bay
Vermilion Bay
a This estimate is based on a total of 314 sample facilities, which represent 629 potentially regulated sample-weighted
facilities. The locations of non-sampled facilities are unknown and could not be included in this analysis. Facilities
subject to BPJ requirements are located on these estuaries.
b Based on estuaries included in EPA's National Estuary Program and the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Source: U.S. EPA, 2006b.
b. Effects on freshwater ecosystems
Reducing I&E at Phase III facilities may also benefit freshwater ecosystems of national significance, including
the Great Lakes Basin and Mississippi River. These waterbodies are subject to large-scale ecosystem restoration
efforts that are good indicators of great public importance of restoring the ecological health of these ecosystems
(Northeast Midwest Institute, 2004; The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, 2004; U.S. DOI, 2004;
USFWS, 2004). The ecosystem restoration efforts focus on many issues, including coastal habitat restoration,
protection offish species, conservation of migratory birds and endangered species. For example, between 1992
and 2001, more than $17 million was devoted to projects to restore and conserve the Great Lakes ecosystem;
$102 million was spent on improving the Mississippi River ecosystem (Brescia, 2002; U.S. EPA, 2004b).
Reducing I&E of aquatic organisms may improve the quality of aquatic habitat and contribute to improvement of
the biological integrity and health of these ecosystems.
Finally, reducing I&E in waterbodies that do not have a national significance may contribute to restoration or
protection of ecosystems of regional or local importance.
A6-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A7
Chapter A7: Entrainment Survival
Chapter Contents
A7-1
A7-2
A7-3
A7-4
A7-5
A7-6
The Causes of Entrainment Mortality A7-1
A7-1.1 Fragility of Entrained Organisms.... A7-1
A7-1.2 Thermal Stress A7-2
A7-1.3 Mechanical Stress A7-2
A7-1.4 Chemical Stress A7-2
Factors Affecting the Determination of
Entrainment Survival A7-2
Detailed Analysis of Entrainment Survival
Studies Reviewed A7-9
Discussion of Review Criteria A7-10
A7-4.1 Sampling Design and Method A7-10
A7-4.2 Operating Conditions During
Sampling A7-12
A7-4.3 Survival Estimates A7-13
Applicability of Entrainment Survival
Studies to Other Facilities A7-15
Conclusions A7-15
Introduction
To calculate benefits associated with entrainment
reduction, EPA used the assumption that all
organisms passing through a facility's cooling water
system would experience 100% mortality. This
assumption was recommended in EPA's 1977
Guidance for Evaluating the Adverse Environmental
Impact of Cooling Water Intake Structures on the
Aquatic Environment: Section 316(b) P.L. 92-500
(U.S. EPA, 1977). This is also the basic assumption
currently used in the permitting programs for section
316(b) in Arizona, California, Hawaii, Louisiana,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Rhode Island
(personal communication, I. Chen, U.S. EPA Region
6, 2002; personal communication, P. Colarusso,
U.S. EPA Region 1, 2002; personal communication,
G. Kimball, 2002; personal communication,
M. McCullough, Ohio EPA, 2002; McLean and
Dieter, 2002; personal communication, R. Stuber,
U.S. EPA Region 9, 2002).
EPA obtained 37 entrainment survival studies conducted at 22 individual power producing facilities and
conducted a detailed review. EPA also reviewed a report prepared for the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI) (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, 2000) which summarized the results of 36 entrainment
studies, 31 of which were the same studies reviewed by EPA. The intent of EPA's review was to determine the
soundness of the findings behind the entrainment survival studies and to evaluate whether the assumption of
100% entrainment mortality is appropriate for use in the national benefits assessment for Phase III facilities to
compare to the costs of installing the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact.
A7-1 The Causes of Entrainment Mortality
A7-1.1 Fragility of Entrained Organisms
Cooling water intake structures entrain many species offish, shellfish, and macroinvertebrates. These species are
most commonly entrained during their early life stages, as eggs, yolk-sac larvae (YSL), post yolk-sac larvae
(PYSL), and juveniles, because of their small size and limited swimming ability. In addition to having limited or
no mobility, these early life stages are very fragile and thus susceptible to injury and mortality from a wide range
of factors (Marcy, 1975). For these reasons, entrained eggs and larvae experience high mortality rates as a result
of entrainment. The three primary factors contributing to the mortality of organisms entrained in cooling water
systems are thermal stress, mechanical stress, and chemical stress (Marcy, 1975). The relative contribution of
each of these factors to the rate of mortality of entrained organisms can vary among facilities, based on the nature
of their design and operations as well as the sensitivity of the species entrained (Marcy, 1975; Beck and the
Committee on Entrainment, 1978; Ulanowicz and Kinsman, 1978). These three primary factors are discussed in
more detail below.
A7-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
A7-1.2 Thermal Stress
Facilities use cooling water as a means of disposing of waste heat from facility operations. Thus, organisms
present in the cooling water are exposed to rapid increases in temperatures above ambient conditions when
passing through the cooling water system. This thermal shock causes mortality or sublethal effects that affect
further growth and development of entrained eggs and larvae (Schubel et al, 1978; Stauffer, 1980). The
magnitude of thermal stress experienced by organisms passing through a facility's cooling system depends on
facility-specific parameters such as intake temperature, maximum temperature, discharge temperature, duration of
exposure to elevated temperatures through the facility and in the mixing zone of the discharge canal, the critical
thermal maxima of the species, and delta T (AT, i.e., the difference between ambient water temperature and
maximum water temperature within the cooling system) (Marcy, 1975; Schubel et al., 1978). The extent of the
effect of thermal stress can also vary among the species and life stages of entrained organisms (Schubel et al.,
1978; Stauffer, 1980).
A7-1.3 Mechanical Stress
Entrained organisms are also exposed to significant mechanical stress during passage through a cooling system,
which also causes mortality. Types of mechanical stress include effects from turbulence, buffeting, velocity
changes, pressure changes, and abrasion from contact with the interior surfaces of the cooling water intake
structure (Marcy, 1973; Marcy et al., 1978). The extent of the effect of mechanical stress depends on the design of
the facility's cooling water intake structure and the capacity utilization of operation. Some studies have suggested
that mechanical stress may be the dominant cause of entrainment mortality at many facilities (Marcy, 1973;
Marcy et al., 1978). For this reason, it has been suggested that the only effective method of minimizing adverse
effects to entrained organisms is to reduce the intake of water (Marcy, 1975).
A7-1.4 Chemical Stress
Chemical biocides are occasionally used within cooling water intake structures to remove biofouling organisms.
Chlorine is the active component of the most commonly used biocides (Morgan and Carpenter, 1978; Morgan,
1980). These biocides are used in concentrations sufficient to kill organisms fouling the cooling system structures,
and thus cause mortality to the organisms entrained during biocide application. The extent of the effect of
chemical stress depends on the concentration of biocide and the timing of its application. Eggs may be less
susceptible to biocides than larvae (Lauer et al., 1974; Morgan and Carpenter, 1978). Tolerance to biocides may
also vary according to species. However, most species have been shown to be affected at low concentrations,
<0.5 ppm, of residual chlorine (Morgan and Carpenter, 1978).
A7-2 Factors Affecting the Determination of Entrainment Survival
There are many challenges that must be overcome in the design of a sampling program intended to accurately
establish the magnitude of entrainment survival (Lauer et al., 1974; Marcy, 1975; Coutant and Bevelhimer, 2001).
Samples are almost certain not to be fully representative of the community of organisms experiencing
entrainment. Some species are extremely fragile and disintegrate during collection or when preserved, and are
thus not documented when samples are processed (Boreman and Goodyear, 1981). This is particularly true for the
most fragile life stages, such as eggs and yolk-sac larvae of many species. All sampling devices are selective for a
certain size range of organisms, so a number of sampling methods would have to be employed to accurately
sample the broad size range of organisms subject to entrainment. The relative ability of different organisms to
avoid sampling devices also determines abundance and species composition estimated from samples (Boreman
and Goodyear, 1981). This avoidance ability varies with the size, motility, and condition of the organisms. If dead
or dying organisms tend to settle out, then sampling will be selective for the live, healthy specimens (Marcy,
1975). If, on the other hand, the healthy, more motile specimens are able to avoid sampling gear, the sampling
will tend to be selective for dead or stunned specimens. The patchy distribution of many species (Day et al., 1989;
Valiela, 1995) creates difficulties in developing precise estimates of organism densities (Boreman and Goodyear,
A7-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
1981). The patchier the distribution, the greater the number of samples required to reduce the uncertainty
associated with the density estimates to an acceptable level.
The factors just discussed affect the ability to accurately establish the type and abundance of organisms present at
the intake and discharge of a cooling water system. A second suite of factors, superimposed on the first, affects
the ability to estimate the percentages of those organisms that are alive and dead at those two locations. The
greatest challenge to be overcome is posed by the fragility of the organisms being studied. The early life stages of
most species are so fragile that they may experience substantial mortality simply due to being sampled, both from
contact with the sampling gear and in being handled for subsequent evaluation. For example, Marcy (1973)
reported on the effects of current velocity on percent mortality of ichthyoplankton taken in plankton nets, and
found sampling mortality of 18% at velocities of 0.3 to 0.6 m/sec. The loss or damage of organisms beyond
identification during plant passage causes overestimations of the true fraction of live organisms in the discharge
samples, because the disintegrated organisms are extruded from the sampling device (Boreman and Goodyear,
1981).
The entrainment survival studies addressed in this review quantified survival by estimating the percentage of
organisms categorized as alive, stunned, or dead present in samples collected at the intake and discharge locations
of a facility. In the studies reviewed, a variety of methods were used to determine the physiological state of
sampled organisms, ranging from placing the sampled organisms in various types of holding containers for
observation to the use of devices specifically designed for assessment of larval survival, such as a larval table. A
variety of criteria was also used in these studies to categorize the physiological status of the organisms, such as
opacity as an indicator of a dead egg, and movement of a larva in response to being touched as an indicator of
being alive or stunned. The lack of standardized procedures applied for assessing physiological condition in all of
the studies reviewed made comparisons of the study findings difficult.
When quantifying entrainment survival, these studies used the estimates of the percentage dead from samples
collected at the intake as controls to correct the samples at the discharge for mortality associated with natural
causes and with sampling and handling stress. The use of intake samples as controls requires the assumption that
sampling- and handling-induced mortality rates be the same at the intake and discharge, which, in turn, requires
that sampling methods and conditions be nearly identical in both locations (Marcy, 1973). This requirement is
difficult to meet at most facilities because of the differences in the physical structures and hydrodynamic
conditions at intakes and discharges (e.g., frequently high velocity, turbulent flow at discharges versus lower
velocity, laminar flows at intakes). In many cases, the location and design of the cooling water intake and
discharge structures may preclude use of the same type of sampling gear in both locations. Another assumption
implicit in this approach is that mortality due to entrainment is entirely independent of mortality due to sampling
and handling and that there is no interaction between these stresses, an assumption that is acknowledged but never
proven in the studies reviewed.
The percent alive in the intake control is frequently well below 100% because these fragile organisms experience
substantial mortality from stresses caused by being collected. An additional factor contributing to the less than
100% alive in intake samples is that some dead organisms may be present in the water column being sampled
because of natural mortality or recirculation of water discharged from the cooling system. In many studies, the
survival in the intake sample is extremely low; for example, the intake survival for bay anchovy was 0% in
studies conducted at Bowline (Ecological Analysts, 1978a), Brayton Point (Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers,
1999), and Indian Point (Ecological Analysts, 1978c; EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, 1989). The
studies reviewed corrected their discharge survival estimates to account for the control sample mortality by using
the percent alive in the intake control samples in the following manner. First, the proportion initially alive at the
intake (Pi) and discharge (P.D.) samples was determined, for each species in most cases, using the following
equation:
A7-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A7
_ _ Number of alive and stunned organisms
pi or PD =
Total number of organisms collected
Using the intake proportion as the control, initial percent entrainment survival (S.j) was then calculated using the
following equation:
Si =
PI
x 100
When latent mortality was studied, a sample of the alive and stunned organisms from the initial entrainment
survival determination was observed for a given period of time. The latent survival rate calculated is the
proportion of those that remained alive after a given period of time from only those that survived initially and not
the total number sampled. The latent percent survival (S.L.) was determined using the following equation:
SL = 100 x
# of alive organisms after a given time from discharge samples
# of organisms initially sampled alive or stunned indischarge samples
# of alive organisms after a given time from intake samples
# of organisms initially sampled alive or stunned in intake samples
Entrainment survival was then calculated by adjusting the initial entrainment survival with latent entrainment
survival using the following equation:
Entrainment survival (%) = S: x SL
A variation of this formula, specifically Abbott's formula, is used for acute toxicity testing in the Methods for
Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms
(U.S. EPA, 2002; EPA-821-R-02-012) and in testing of pesticides and toxic substances in Product Performance
Test Guidelines OPPTS 810.3500 Premises Treatments (U.S. EPA, 1998; EPA-712-C-98-413), to adjust mortality
for the possibility of natural deaths occurring during a test. This formula is intended to account for acceptable
levels of unavoidable control mortality in the range of 5 to 10% (Newman, 1995). Abbott's formula is as follows:
Corrected mortality = 1 -
1 - proportion dead in treatment
1 - proportion dead in control
This method of correcting for control mortality is often used in toxicological experiments in which organisms in
concurrent control and experimental samples experience identical conditions except for the stressor that is the
subject of study, and, as already noted, this method is applied when control mortalities, from stress due to holding
or sampling and from natural causes, are generally low (less than 10%). In entrainment survival studies, sampling
conditions at the intake and discharge are seldom identical. Also, the initial mortalities in the intake samples are
often much higher than 5 or 10% and sometimes higher than the mortality in the discharge samples.
In addition, the assumption that mortality due to entrainment is entirely independent of mortality due to sampling
and handling with no interaction between these stresses is not true. The dead organisms observed in the intake
samples comprise organisms that died before sampling from natural conditions, organisms that died from the
stress of sampling and sorting, and possibly organisms that died from previous passages through the cooling water
system at facilities where water is recirculated. The dead organisms observed in the discharge samples comprise
organisms that died before passage through the facility from natural conditions, organisms that died from the
stresses associated with entrainment as described above, and organisms that died from the stress of sampling and
sorting. The fundamental difference between the extent of the effect of sampling stress in the intake and the
A7-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A7
discharge samples is that the discharge samples are exposed to sampling stress after they have been exposed to
entrainment stress. Thus the most vulnerable organisms have already died because of entrainment and would not
be alive at the time of sampling to die from that stress. By correcting discharge samples for sampling and natural
deaths using the intake results, the assumption is made that the mortality in the discharge sample is the result of
the same probability of death due to sampling as in the intake sample and only the additional mortality is due to
the stress of entrainment. When intake survival (P.:.) is less than discharge survival (P.D), the use of the equation
for entrainment survival (S.i) results in a calculation of 100% survival even though the majority of organisms may
be dead in both samples (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, 2000). However, in the intake sample, much
of the mortality may be due to sampling stress, whereas in the discharge sample, much of the mortality may be
due to entrainment stress. Additionally, the initial survival estimates may be overestimations of survival due to the
disintegration of entrained organisms and their subsequent extrusion through the sampling gear (Boreman and
Goodyear, 1981). For all of the reasons described above, the applicability of this equation for determining
entrainment survival by correcting discharge survival with intake survival is questionable. Also, the statistical
attributes of these calculated mortality proportions are often not addressed. The higher and more variable the
intake sample mortality percentages, the greater the degree of uncertainty that would be expected to be associated
with the resultant entrainment survival estimates.
An additional factor that was not accounted for in all the studies reviewed was the fate of organisms discharged
into receiving waters after passage through the cooling system. Latent mortality studies were intended to
document delayed mortality of organisms that were lethally injured or stressed during entrainment but were not
killed immediately. Some studies (e.g., Lauer et al., 1974) also reported that some fish larvae surviving
entrainment behaved normally when maintained in laboratory conditions for extended periods of time, eating and
growing normally. However, larvae that did not experience immediate mortality from lethal stresses were
discharged into receiving waters under conditions substantially altered from the normal environment in which
they were present before entrainment and under conditions very dissimilar to those experienced under laboratory
conditions. Any naturally occurring vertical positioning of the organisms within the water column would be
disrupted (Day et al., 1989), and the turbulence and velocities present in discharge locations would be unlike the
environmental conditions they experienced before entrainment. Under such altered conditions, their normal ability
to feed or escape predation is compromised. In addition, thermal shock can disrupt further development of eggs
and larvae even if they survive entrainment (Schubel et al., 1978). The potential for such phenomena to occur and
the magnitude the effect may have on any possible survival of entrained organisms would be nearly impossible to
confirm or refute through field studies. However, were these phenomena to occur, they would result in mortalities
beyond and in addition to the initial and latent mortalities that were calculated in the studies reviewed.
The factors discussed above served as the basis for EPA's review of the entrainment survival studies. Table A7-1
presents summary information collected directly from each of the original studies reviewed.
Table A7-1: Summary of Entrainment Survival Study Results
Facility
Anclote
Bergum
Power
Station
Bowline
Point
Sampling
Period
September-
November
1985
April-June
1976
June-July
1975
Number
of
Samples
and Days
120
samples,
8 days
Unknown
#,
6 days
Unknown
#,
unknown
days
Species
Fish larvae
Amphipods
Chaetognatha
Crab larvae
Caridean shrimp
Smelt
Perches
Striped bass
White perch
Bay anchovy
Number
Sampled
at
Intake
109
5,185
1,549
3,007
2,728
Unknown
Unknown
141
122
2,134
Number
Sampled
at
Discharge
474
4,662
1,927
6,145
1,766
322
826
111
168
1,317
Survival
Study
Initial
and
24 hour
latent
Initial
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
Discharge
Survival
8-47%
29-58%
28-35%
74-80%
45-66%
10-28%
32-74%
74%
68%
2%
Latent
Discharge
Survival
-
-
23%
26%
0%
Study
Survival
Estimate
27-62%
49-73%
67-72%
21-100%
64-81%
10-41%
39-82%
70%
100%
22%
A7-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A7
Table A7-1: Summary of Entrainment Survival Study Results
Facility
Bowline
Point
Bowline
Point
Bowline
Point
Bowline
Point
Braidwood
Nuclear
Brayton
Point
Cayuga
Generating
Plant
Connecticut
Yankee
Connecticut
Yankee
Contra
Costa
Danskammer
Point
Generating
Station
Fort Calhoun
Sampling
Period
May-July
1976
March- July
1977
March-
October
1978
May-June
1979
June-July
1988
April-
August
1997
February-
July 1998
May-June
1979
June-July
1970
June-July
1971 and
1972
April-July
1976
May-
November
1975
October
1973 -June
1977
Number
of
Samples
and Days
Unknown
#,
10 days
736
samples,
46 days
609
samples,
40 days
435
samples,
19 days
68
samples,
3 days
6,829
samples,
41 days
80
samples,
24 days
102
samples,
7 days
30
samples,
2 days
Unknown
#,
7 days
372
samples,
29 days
Unknown
#,
89 days
Species
Striped bass PYSL
White perch PYSL
Bay anchovy PYSL
Herrings PYSL
Atlantic tomcod
PYSL
Striped bass larvae
White perch PYSL
Bay anchovy larvae
Herrings PYSL
Silverside PYSL
Striped bass PYSL
White perch PYSL
Bay anchovy PYSL
Herrings PYSL
Striped bass PYSL
White perch PYSL
Bay anchovy PYSL
Herrings PYSL
All species combined
Winter flounder
Tautog
Windowpane flounder
Bay anchovy
American sand lance
Suckers
Carps and minnows
Perches
Alewife
Blueback herring
Alewife
Blueback herring
Striped bass
Striped bass PYSL
White perch PYSL
Herrings PYSL
Ephemeroptera
Hydropsychidae
Chironomidae
Number
Sampled
at
Intake
118
54
148
46
54
228
26
634
37
24
646
190
325
271
77
205
181
63
191
49
34
58
539
1,091
984
466
108
Unknown
273
637
54
36
200
2,221
3,690
2,646
Number
Sampled
at
Discharge
207
42
1,120
83
17
452
38
1,524
22
56
792
301
763
51
155
191
89
92
103
965
401
58
15,896
2,941
649
192
66
Unknown
795
329
61
55
326
2,220
4,964
2,925
Survival
Study
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
and
48 hour
latent
Initial
Initial
Initial
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
Initial
Discharge
Survival
54%
33%
0%
20%
29%
71-72%
34%
0-2%
23%
16%
52-63%
19%
0-3%
23-63%
35-41%
26-35%
0-4%
30-31%
59%
30-38%
4%
29-30%
0%
0%
75-92%
12-74%
43-69%
0-8%
0-24%
0-50%
39%
38%
20%
18-32%
47-56%
43-66%
Latent
Discharge
Survival
23%
21%
0%
1%
12%
55-66%
69%
0%
5%
0%
5-46%
0-5%
0%
0%
8-20%
5-8%
0%
0-3%
-
93-98%
45-100%
44-61%
3%
4%
0%
-
Study
Survival
Estimate
26-77%
13-84%
0-80%
54%
41-100%
16-62%
51%
76-100%
52-68%
24-42%
32%
0-58%
100%
90-100%
98-100%
65-67%
0%
100%
87-98%
25-86%
19-59%
0-25%
0-26%
0-95%
95%
100%
80-87%
92%
92%
84%
A7-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A7
Table A7-1: Summary of Entrainment Survival Study Results
Facility
Ginna
Generating
Station
Indian Point
Indian Point
Indian Point
Generating
Station
Indian Point
Generating
Station
Indian Point
Generating
Station
Indian Point
Generating
Station
Indian River
Power Plant
Muskingum
River Plant
Northport
Generating
Station
Oyster Creek
Nuclear
Generating
Station
Pittsburg
Power Plant
Sampling
Period
June and
August
1980
June and
July 1977
May-July
1978
March-
August
1979
April-July
1980
May-June
1985
June
1988
July 1975-
December
1976
1979
April and
July 1980
February-
August
1985
April-July
1976
Number
of
Samples
and Days
255
samples,
20 days
Unknown
#,
7 days
Unknown
#,
22 days
Unknown
#,
40 days
Unknown
#,
44 days
Unknown
#,
49 days
Unknown
#,
13 days
46
samples,
27 days
No
samples
162
samples,
20 days
28
samples,
20 days
Unknown
#,
1 days
Species
Alewife larvae
Rainbow smelt larvae
Striped bass PYSL
White perch PYSL
Bay anchovy PYSL
Herrings PYSL
Striped bass PYSL
White perch PYSL
Bay anchovy PYSL
Herrings PYSL
Atlantic tomcod
Striped bass
White perch
Herrings
Bay anchovy
Striped bass
Bay anchovy
White perch
Bay anchovy PYSL
Striped bass larvae
Bay anchovy larvae
Bay anchovy
Atlantic croaker
Spot
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic silverside
None specified
American sand lance
Winter flounder
Bay anchovy
Bay anchovy larvae
Winter flounder
larvae
Striped bass
Number
Sampled
at
Intake
54
31
806
158
1,254
100
447
227
500
1,046
266
127
195
254
457
227
260
113
106
353
633
Unknown
0
29
13
7
3,396
3,935
196
Number
Sampled
at
Discharge
95
17
518
67
704
65
1,102
392
820
1,104
212
153
147
186
485
248
588
176
274
2,710
7,391
Unknown
0
782
17
11
3,474
2,999
266
Survival
Study
Initial
and
48 hour
latent
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
and
48 hour
latent
Initial
and
24 hour
latent
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
None
Initial
and
48 hour
latent
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
Initial
Discharge
Survival
0%
0%
45-52%
15-43%
3-4%
10-11%
0-34%
0-37%
0%
0-8%
14-46%
62-77%
24-70%
28%
6%
50-81%
0-4%
0-90%
6%
62-68%
0-2%
Unknown
Intermedi-
ate to high
potential
17%
35%
0%
0-71%
32-92%
8-87%
Latent
Discharge
Survival
-
29-36%
15-30%
0%
0%
0-19%
6-15%
0%
0%
15-75%
4-21%
18%
13%
4%
60-72%
0%
73%
0%
24-44%
0%
Unknown
2%
17%
0%
0%
6-66%
Study
Survival
Estimate
0%
85-87%
73-89%
18-36%
40%
0-82%
0-58%
0%
0%
11-64%
59-75%
29-32%
22-31%
3-7%
55-81%
2-4%
50-90%
0-24.3%
60-79%
0-25%
0-100%
0-100%
25-100%
0-100%
0-100%
2%
10%
0-68%
15-84%
12-94%
A7-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A7
Table A7-1: Summary of Entrainment Survival Study Results
Facility
Port
Jefferson
PG&E
Potrero
Quad Cities
Nuclear
Station
Quad Cities
Nuclear
Station
Roseton
Generating
Station
Roseton
Generating
Station
Roseton
Generating
Station
Roseton
Generating
Station
Roseton
Generating
Station
Salem
Generating
Station
Sampling
Period
April
1978
January
1979
June
1978
April-June
1984
May-
November
1975
June-July
1976
March
May-July
1977
March
July-July
1978
May-July
1980
1977-1982
Number
of
Samples
and Days
94
samples,
5 days
25
samples
Unknown
#,
5 days
Unknown
#,
8 days
672
samples,
41 days
Unknown
#,
27 days
Unknown
#,
unknown
days
256
samples,
30 days
1,431
samples,
42 days
640
samples,
38 days
Species
Winter flounder
Sand lance
Fourbeard rockling
American eel
Sculpin
Pacific herring
Freshwater drum
Minnows
Freshwater drum
Carp
Buffalo
Striped bass PYSL
White perch PYSL
Herrings PYSL
Striped bass PYSL
White perch PYSL
Herring PYSL
Striped bass PYSL
White perch PYSL
Herring PYSL
Atlantic tomcod YSL
Striped bass PYSL
White perch PYSL
Herring PYSL
Atlantic tomcod
PYSL
Striped bass PYSL
White perch PYSL
Herring PYSL
Spot
Herrings
Atlantic croaker
Striped bass
White perch
Bay anchovy
Weakfish
Number
Sampled
at
Intake
36
249
216
107
22
546
378
278
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
100
77
471
93
401
1,054
427
251
880
1,178
123
395
1,274
83
245
194
812
66
8
Number
Sampled
at
Discharge
26
191
144
96
17
716
916
307
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
172
97
833
80
349
645
765
266
1,344
1,345
211
459
1,089
153
425
366
1,252
130
14
Survival
Study
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
and
24 hour
latent
Initial
and
24 hour
latent
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
and
48 hour
latent
Onsite
and
simulated
studies
Initial
Discharge
Survival
0-23%
12-40%
19-21%
94-96%
88%
16%
0-71%
2-75%
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
62%
29%
26%
14-43%
6-42%
5-29%
3-29%
0-17%
0-5%
16%
27-50%
0-35%
0-10%
33-45%
46-61%
30-59%
7-31%
74.1%
7.1%
Latent
Discharge
Survival
50%
0-10%
71-96%
-
-
6%
1%
0%
0%
18%
27%
0%
40%
18%
10%
0%
36%
48-56%
27-62%
1-3%
0%
Study
Survival
Estimate
65%
25-86%
73-100%
100%
75%
70%
2-62%
7-63%
63%
92-97%
94%
38%
19-58%
11-79%
10-59%
6-58%
0-52%
0-19%
41%
46%
56-96%
0%
39%
88%
67%
23%
0-76%
2-74%
0-60%
32-46%
30-70%
2-3%
14-56%
A7-8
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
A review of the data in Table A7-1 shows that the majority of the studies were conducted at facilities located in a
limited geographical region of the country: 24 of the studies were conducted in the northeastern region of the
United States. This may explain why these studies provide entrainment survival estimates for relatively few, only
24, species or families offish. The majority of survival estimates in these studies were for striped bass, white
perch, bay anchovy, and herrings. Also, the majority of these studies are over 20 years old, with 25 of the studies
conducted in the 1970s. Thus, the results on species composition and abundance are not necessarily indicative of
current conditions, with improved water quality due to the enactment of the Clean Water Act in 1972.
Entrainment survival in these studies was also estimated with relatively short sampling periods, with the
15 studies using sampling periods of approximately two months long. Also, the sampling periods did not always
correspond to peak egg and larval abundance in the waterbody. Twelve of these studies determined that sample
sizes of fewer than 100 individuals for a particular species at the discharge station were sufficient to give an
accurate estimation of entrainment survival. These small sample sizes are not be sufficient to provide accurate
estimates of entrainment survival given that these facilities entrain organisms on the order of millions to billions
per year. Also, small sample sizes in conjunction with the high variability of entrainment survival increase the
uncertainty associated with these estimations. The small sample sizes allowed for limited study of latent survival,
and no facility attempted to study latent physiological effects of entrainment on a species, such as the possible
effects on growth rates, maturation, fertility, and vulnerability to natural mortality. The nature of the equation for
entrainment survival results in estimates substantially higher than the proportion of survival in the discharge
samples because of its use of a correction for mortality in the intake samples, which is often quite high. The fact
that the existing studies are characterized by high uncertainty, high variability, and the potential for high bias
(Boreman and Goodyear, 1981) complicates efforts to synthesize the various results in a manner that would
provide useful generalizations of the results or application to other particular facilities. For these reasons, EPA
believes that the reported results do not provide a clear indication as to the extent of entrainment survival
significantly above 0% to be used as a defensible assumption to calculate benefits for the section 316(b)
rulemaking.
A7-3 Detailed Analysis of Entrainment Survival Studies Reviewed
The summary tables at the end of this chapter provide detailed summary descriptions of each of the 37 studies
reviewed. EPA reviewed these studies to determine if they were conducted in a manner that provides adequate
representation of the current probability of entrainment survival at the facility. The criteria EPA used to evaluate
the studies focused on three main themes: the sampling effort of the study, the operating conditions of the facility
during the study, and the survival estimates determined as the result of the study. Specifically, EPA asked the
following questions:
Sampling:
>• When were samples collected?
>• With what frequency were samples collected?
>• Were samples collected when organisms were spawning, or at peak abundance?
>• What time of day were samples collected?
>• What was the number of replicates per sampling date?
>• Were the intake and discharge samples collected at the same time so the results can be compared?
>• How long was each sample collected?
>• What method was used to collect samples?
>• At what depth were samples collected?
>• What was the location of the samples collected at the intake and discharge?
>• Which water quality parameters were measured?
>• Were dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and particulate organic carbon (POC) measured?
>• What was the velocity at the intake and at the discharge?
A7-9
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Operating conditions during sampling:
>• How many generating units at the facility were in operation?
>• How many pumps at the facility were in operation?
>• What was the intake temperature range, the discharge temperature range, and the AT range to which
organisms were exposed?
>• Were biocides in use?
Survival estimation:
>• How many sampling events occurred?
>• What was the total number of samples collected?
>• What was the total number of organisms collected?
>• How many organisms are entrained each year at this facility?
>• Did the study take into account fragmented organisms?
>• Were the number of organisms collected at the intake and at the discharge comparable?
>• What were the most abundant species collected?
>• Were stunned larvae included with live larvae in survival estimates?
>• Did the facility omit dead and opaque organisms from the count of dead organisms?
>• How was latent survival studied?
>• Were data sampled from all times and operating conditions combined to determine entrainment survival?
>• What were the controls for the study?
>• What was the range of intake survival determined by the study?
>• What was the range of discharge survival determined by the study?
>• How was entrainment survival calculated?
>• Were confidence intervals or standard errors calculated?
>• Were significant differences tested between intake and discharge survival?
>• Was entrainment survival calculated for species with low sample sizes, such as fewer than 100
organisms?
>• Was egg survival studied?
>• Was there any trend evident in larval survival?
>• Were the raw data provided to verify results?
>• What was the trend of survival with regard to temperature?
>• What was the extent of mechanical mortality?
>• What quality control procedures were used?
>• Was the study peer reviewed?
A7-4 Discussion of Review Criteria
In this section, the criteria EPA used to review the entrainment survival studies are discussed in depth to give a
better indication of the soundness of the science behind a facility's estimate of potential survival.
A7-4.1 Sampling Design and Method
These aspects of the sampling effort are re levant to whether the samples collected are representative of all
organisms experiencing entrainment with regard to taxa and size classes, whether the estimates of densities and
numbers are accurate and precise, and whether the survival estimates for the intake and discharge can be validly
compared (Marcy, 1975; Boreman and Goodyear, 1981). Sampling should be carefully planned to minimize any
potential bias (Marcy, 1975; Boreman and Goodyear, 1981). Studies should be conducted throughout the parts of
the year when substantial numbers of organisms are entrained. Any possible survival may vary with factors that
change seasonally, such as organism size and life stage and ambient water temperature. Most studies attempted to
collect samples during times of peak abundance, although the sampling frequency may not have been sufficient to
A7-10
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
fully capture peak densities. Of those reviewed by EPA, six studies did not correspond with the timing of peak
densities at that location.
Even if a study is limited to the early life stages of particular fish or shellfish, survival differences among sizes
and life stages and seasonal or temperature-related changes in entrainment survival must be quantified. The timing
of the sample collection for an entrainment survival study can influence results in a number of ways, such that
results from studies collected during one period may not be representative of potential effects during other
periods. For instance, samples collected when the intake temperatures are low or late in a spawning season when
larvae are larger can produce estimates of entrainment survival that may be higher than at other times. Thus,
studies need to be conducted throughout the entire spawning season to accurately characterize overall entrainment
mortality if entrainment survival is found to vary with life stage or size of each species entrained. For the same
reason, it may not be appropriate to develop average survival estimates from samples collected under different
environmental conditions (in particular under different temperature regimes) and from only parts of a spawning
period for a particular species. This was done in almost all the studies reviewed by EPA, which causes their
results to be of questionable value. This also makes it difficult for EPA to synthesize the results of these studies
into a meaningful average value of entrainment survival to be used in a national benefits assessment.
Many studies collected samples at night to ensure high numbers of organisms in their samples because larvae rise
to the surface at night to feed and avoid predation (Marcy, 1975; Day et al., 1989). This practice will bias results
because the samples will contain a disproportionate number of live organisms than that which is actually present
in the water column. There is evidence that dead organisms will sink to the bottom of the water column after
entrainment (Marcy, 1975). Twenty-four studies indicated that most sampling took place at night. For many
studies, the depth of sampling is not noted and thus it is unclear whether the samples were collected near the
surface, at mid-depth, or near the bottom of the water column. Any potential for bias due to a higher percentage of
alive organisms present near the surface could not be assessed.
The method of sampling should be selected to cause the least amount of mortality possible and the mesh size
should be fine enough to capture disintegrated or fragmented organisms. Many studies sampled organisms using
sampling instruments with mesh size greater than or equal to 500 [im. This may not be fine enough to capture
disintegrated or fragmented organisms in the discharge. Attention should be given to the mesh size of sampling
instruments to be sure that the targeted sample is not extruded through the mesh.
Intake and discharge sampling should be paired to be sure that the same population of organisms is sampled and
subsequently compared. In 12 studies examined, it is unknown if the samples at the intake and discharge were
paired. In some studies, samples were not collected at all locations during all sampling events. In other studies,
twice as many samples were collected at the discharge than at the intake. Also, in many instances, the intake
samples were collected at different generating units of the facility than the discharge samples. Average elapsed
times for sample collection were given, and it is unclear if the same elapsed time was used at both locations to
give an accurate depiction of organismal densities. The time elapsed during sample collection or the volume of
water sampled should be identical in the paired intake and discharge samples to ensure valid comparisons of
samples. It was not indicated in any of the studies reviewed whether the same volume of water was sampled in all
the intake and discharge samples. If intake samples are to be compared to discharge samples, consistent sampling
methods must be used at the two locations so that the samples contain the same density of organisms.
The location of the intake sampling is important because it may contain organisms that already died because of
the changes in velocity near the intake. Two studies reviewed collected intake samples after the water had entered
the cooling system. The location of the discharge sampling is also important. Samples collected from the end of
the discharge canal may not contain organisms that died from passage through the facility because of the tendency
of dead organisms to settle out of the water column in the discharge canal. Samples collected from the discharge
pipe may not contain organisms that died from thermal effects of entrainment because the samples are collected
before the full effects of thermal exposure were experienced. Fourteen studies reviewed collected discharge
samples from the discharge pipe. It is also unknown if the samples collected in the discharge canal or from the
receiving water contained organisms in the dilution water that bypassed the cooling water system. Five studies
A7-11
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
reviewed collected discharge samples in the receiving water downstream from the discharge canal, which can
result in samples containing organisms that never passed through the cooling water system. The velocity at the
intake and discharge should also be recorded to determine the potential to cause mortality. Fourteen of the studies
noted the velocity at the intake, at the discharge, or both. For the ones that did not give both intake and discharge
velocities, it is unknown whether the velocities at the two sampling sites were comparable, and thus whether the
mortalities due to velocity-related sampling stress were comparable at the two locations.
Water chemistry conditions also need to be recorded to be sure conditions are similar at all sampling locations.
Water quality parameters include measurements of dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity in the through-plant
water, at the discharge point, and in the containers or impoundments in which the entrained organism are kept
when determining latent mortality. Eighteen studies reviewed gave some indication that water quality parameters
were measured. However, it is unclear whether measurements were collected at both the intake and the discharge,
and only one study reviewed indicated that water quality parameters were measured in latent mortality studies
(EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, 1986).
A7-4.2 Operating Conditions During Sampling
Mortality due to entrainment stress is affected by the operating characteristics of the power facility. The
conditions under which the samples are collected are extremely important and, therefore, the results can be
assumed to represent possible survival only when the facility is operating under those same conditions and at that
time of year, and may not represent any potential for survival at all times. For example, results of studies
conducted when the plant was not generating power (and thus not transferring heat to the cooling water) would
not be applicable to impacts when it was in full operation. The magnitude of mechanical stress is dependent on
the design of the facility's cooling water intake structure. The physical and operating conditions of the facility
must be recorded to determine the effect on entrainment survival. The percentage of the maximum load at which
the facility is operating must be recorded at the time of sampling to indicate the extent to which organisms are
exposed to stress. The number of generating units was highly variable or unknown in many of the studies
reviewed. Only one study indicated that the facility operated at peak load to maximize temperature stress during
the time of sampling. Eight studies indicated that power was generated during only a portion of time in the
sampling period. To fully account for the effects of mechanical stressors on entrainment survival, the study must
reflect the speed and pressure changes within the condenser, the number of pumps in operation, the occurrence of
abrasive surfaces, and the turbulence within the condenser. In addition, it is important to note the number and
arrangement of generating units, parallel or in sequence, which may expose organisms to entrainment in multiple
structures. Survival should be studied under the range of facility conditions that may influence survival, for
example, intake flow or capacity utilization and ambient (intake) water temperature and AT.
The effect of temperature can be species-specific since different fishes have different critical thermal maxima.
The maximum temperature to which organisms may be exposed while passing through the facility may cause
instant death in some species but not others. To assess the effect of thermal stressors on entrainment survival, the
study must determine the temperature regime of the facility. Specifically, the study must record the temperature at
both the intake and the discharge point for each component of the facilities system: temperature changes within
the system, including the inflow temperature; maximum temperature; AT; rate of temperature change; and the
temperature of the water to which the organisms are discharged. It is also important to measure the duration of
time an organism is entrained and thus exposed to the thermal conditions within the condenser and in the mixing
zone of the discharge canal. This information was not provided in the studies reviewed by EPA. Also, in those
studies that attempted to relate survival to temperature stress, too few samples were collected at different
temperature ranges to give an adequate representation of survival in that range. The EPRI report sorted larval
entrainment survival data by discharge temperature and concluded that survivability decreased as the discharge
temperature increased (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, 2000). The lowest probability of larval
survival occurred at temperatures greater than 33 °C. In the studies reviewed by EPA, a noticeable decline in
survival estimates occurred at discharge temperatures above 30 °C. The amount of time that a facility discharges
water in different temperature ranges and survival estimates at that temperature range should be weighted when
A7-12
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
attempting to determine the survival estimate throughout the year, rather than using an average survival during the
sampling period, which may not adequately reflect operating conditions throughout the year.
To properly account for chemical stressors, the timing, frequency, methods, concentrations, and duration of
biocide use for the control of biofouling must be determined. The extent to which biocides are routinely used is
unknown. The studies reviewed by EPA were all conducted at times when biocides were not in use because the
biocide use would be expected to kill all organisms. Thus, the results of these studies do not account for biocide
impacts and only reflect other times when biocides are not in use at the particular facility. A reduced survival
estimate for the proportion of time when biocides were in use would have to be incorporated into any estimation
of annual mean entrainment mortality value for a facility for that estimate to be valid.
A7-4.3 Survival Estimates
Many of the entrainment survival studies reviewed did not account for the extent to which the fragile life stages
are fragmented and disintegrated by both sampling and entrainment. Only six of the studies acknowledged that the
entrainment survival estimates were indicative only of alive and stunned identifiable organisms out of all those
sampled and enumerated that were at least 50% intact. In such circumstances, an important proportion of
entrained dead (fragmented) organisms is omitted from the calculated estimate of survival. Entrainment survival
studies should not limit their estimates of survival to include only those organisms that are either whole or 50%
whole in the sample. For those studies that did not discuss the issue of fragmented organisms, it is unclear how
the issue was treated. Several studies indicated that the majority of the sample was mangled or unidentifiable.
There is potential for an extremely large number of dead organisms to be excluded from entrainment survival
estimates because they are fragmented to the point of being unidentifiable. Studies should account for this
fragmentation of organisms by measuring unidentifiable biomass in the samples from the intake and discharge
stations. Without taking these organisms into account, entrainment survival estimates will be biased and the
results will be higher than that which actually occurs. There are indications that the number of fragmented
organisms, which are generally not included in survival estimates, may be high which results in an overestimation
of entrainment survival if these fragmented organisms are more prevalent in the discharge. In the proceedings of a
conference held in Providence, RI, on January 6, 1972, entitled Pollution of the Interstate Waters of Mount Hope
Bay and its Tributaries in the States of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the following regarding fragmentation
was quoted ". . . in 1970 when we observed many small transparent larval menhaden in the intake. They were
most readily noted by their black eyes. But in the effluent, all we found were eyes. They were torn to pieces"
(U.S. EPA, 1972). Foam observed in the discharge (Thomas, 2002) may indicate that fragmentation is substantial.
The data summary in Jinks et al. (1981) suggests that a substantial number offish larvae may be fragmented by
mechanical forces and become unrecognizable, contributing to a bias in estimates of survival. Ten of the studies
reviewed by EPA reported finding fragmented organisms; others did not quantify evidence of disintegrated
organisms. High rates of physical damage and abundant larval fish fragments were reported by Stevens and
Finlayson (1978) at the Pittsburg and Contra Costa power plant discharges. Such losses can contribute to a bias
(overestimation) of entrainment survival because the number of dead organisms are not properly enumerated. In
addition, the low numbers of organisms sampled in the studies in relation to the high annual entrainment numbers
give further indication that the sampling effort may not result in an adequate representation of the organisms
entrained and therefore the survival estimates may not be representative of what occurs.
Including stunned larvae in the initial survival estimates also results in overestimations of survival, since the
majority of these organisms died in the laboratory latent survival studies and even more will die in the natural
conditions of the discharge canal because of predation or disrupted growth and development. Twenty-nine studies
reviewed included stunned larvae in their initial survival estimates, and only a few of these indicated that this
method will overestimate initial survival. The remainder of the studies reviewed did not discuss the treatment of
stunned larvae. Many studies reviewed reported only initial acute mortality. Both initial mortality and extended or
latent (96 hour) mortality should be studied and reported.
Dead and opaque organisms that may have died before entrainment should not be excluded from the enumeration
of dead organisms. Several studies reviewed by EPA noted that dead organisms can turn opaque within an hour.
A7-13
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
This is the same amount of time that can elapse during sampling collection and sorting. Also, zero dead and
opaque organisms were collected in the samples of one study when the facility was not generating power. Three
studies omitted dead and opaque organisms from the dead classification used to estimate survival. This resulted in
an elimination of up to 99% of the organisms in the samples of one study. Alternatively, one study counted only
those organisms that were opaque as dead.
The study design should support unbiased estimation of survival, taking into account pertinent factors and the
changing relative abundances of species and life stages. Because entrainment mortality changes with ambient and
operating conditions, and because the numbers of various species and life stages entrained also change diurnally
and seasonally, use of an average value for entrainment survival could be misleading. Organisms should be
counted and sorted by species, life stage, and size. Entrainment survival should then be calculated separately for
each life stage of each species. Entrainment survival estimates appears to vary markedly with fish larval size (EA
Engineering, Science, and Technology, 1989); estimates of mortality are often higher for smaller larvae and lower
for larger ones. Thus, survival measured for a heterogeneous mixture of sizes will apply only to that mixture
under the same conditions, and cannot be used to accurately estimate survival for the species over the course of
even part of a season. The approach of modeling survival in relation to size may be more promising (EA
Engineering, Science, and Technology, 1989). The implication is that accurate assessment of entrainment survival
requires frequent samples throughout a season, to reflect the changing size and species composition of the
ichthyoplankton. In most of the studies all data from all samples collected under varied times and conditions were
combined to give an average entrainment survival. However, bias could be introduced when a disproportionate
number of samples are taken under a specific set of conditions that may not accurately reflect conditions
throughout the year. Only 16 of the 37 studies reviewed estimated entrainment survival by sampling reported
standard deviations or confidence intervals for the survival estimates. The apparent precision of estimates based
on hundreds of organisms, and the estimates themselves, are deceptive. Such estimates are based on aggregated
numbers that vary in size; however, larval fish survival is dependent on size (EA Engineering, Science, and
Technology, 1989).
The volume of water sampled should always be reported with the number of organisms counted in the sampled
volume. This allows estimates of the densities of organisms in the intake and the discharge water. Density
estimates provide an important check on assumptions. When organism densities cannot be measured accurately, a
useful check on disintegration of organisms that are never counted cannot be performed. Another check on loss of
organisms by disintegration is a count of body parts, which was done in only one of the studies reviewed, but this
will not account for organisms rendered unidentifiable or disintegrated. In some studies, the numbers of
organisms in discharge samples were many times greater than the numbers of organisms in intake samples using
the same sampling methods. In other studies, there were many times more organisms collected in the intake
samples than in the discharge samples. Such large differences raise concerns about sampling methods and
possible sources of bias that would need to be investigated.
Control samples taken to test the mortality associated with sampling gear should be taken as far away from the
intake as possible. This will ensure that the rates of mortality determined will be solely from natural causes or
sampling damage and not from potential damage due to increased velocity and turbulence near the intake.
Sampling mortality should be reduced to the maximum extent possible, using modern sampling techniques (EA
Engineering, Science, and Technology, 2000). When control survival is less than discharge survival, no attempts
should be made to calculate entrainment survival; this would give an erroneous survival result of greater than
100%. That some studies reported entrainment survival estimates greater than 100% indicates that these studies'
methods of calculating entrainment survival were flawed by methodological biases.
Calculating survival from the ratio of the fraction alive in discharge samples to the fraction alive in intake samples
requires assumptions not supported by the same studies. These assumptions are that (1) no organisms are lost to
counting by destruction in the cooling water system, in other words, the same density of organisms (dead or alive)
is observed in the discharge as in the intake; and that (2) the sampling method causes the same rate of mortality in
the discharge sample as in the intake sample. The first assumption is without doubt violated for many species and
life stages. The second assumption is also questionable, because any organisms alive in the discharge have
A7-14
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
survived entrainment and may be more resistant to sampling-related mortality. Because the loss of organisms by
disintegration is not measured, if a substantial number of organisms are destroyed and thus are not counted in the
discharge, it is more likely that entrainment survival will be overestimated. The second assumption can be
minimized if methods of sampling are used that reduce sampling mortality to a minimum (EA Engineering,
Science, and Technology, 2000); such methods (e.g., rear-draw pumping methods, pumpless flume) were used in
only 5 of the 37 studies reviewed. The formula commonly used (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology,
2000) to estimate entrainment survival, S.j. = P.D/. P.I., is appropriate in experimental situations in which the number
of organisms at risk is verified to equal the number counted (alive and dead) at the end of the study. It can be
applied in observational studies when it is known that the number at risk is conserved (i.e., no organisms are lost
in sampling or destroyed so they cannot be counted). The biases that result from loss via sampling or destruction,
and other causes, were illustrated by Boreman and Goodyear (1981). If Abbott' s correction for control mortality
is applied, it requires the assumption that sampling mortality rate is the same for the intake and discharge samples.
This source of bias was also considered by Boreman and Goodyear (1981). Abbott's correction may contribute to
overestimation of entrainment survival because it attributes to entrainment only that mortality in excess of the
mortality attributed to sampling. This may overestimate entrainment survival for two reasons: it is likely that
sampling mortality and entrainment mortality are not entirely additive, and, as noted above, it is quite possible
that the sampling mortality rate is less in the discharge sample than in the intake sample used as the control.
A7-5 Applicability of Entrainment Survival Studies to Other Facilities
Because of many factors, any potential for entrainment survival is most likely facility-specific. Therefore, EPA
does not suggest that entrainment survival estimates be applied to other facilities, as was done in the Muskingum
River Plant study (Ecological Analysts, 1979a). To correctly transfer the results, the physical attributes of
facilities would need to be identical. Specifically, the facilities would need to have similar numbers of cooling
water flow routes; similar lengths of flow routes in terms of time and linear distance; similar mechanical features
in terms of abrasive surfaces, pressure changes, and turbulence; and similar number and types of pumps used. In
addition, there would need to be similarity and constancy of the flow rates, transit times, thermal regimes, and
biocide regimes. The ecological characteristics of the environment around the facility would also need to be
similar in terms of ambient water temperature, dissolved oxygen level, and the species and life stage of organisms
present. Similarities or differences in these aspects may profoundly affect the applicability of the study across
facilities. The studies reviewed by EPA were unsuitable for developing unbiased estimates of entrainment
survival over the pertinent courses of time (diel and seasonal) and the typical environmental and operating
conditions at the facilities conducting the studies, and thus cannot be used to estimate entrainment survival at
section 316(b) facilities nationwide.
A7-6 Conclusions
EPA's review of the 37 entrainment survival studies revealed a number of limitations that challenge their use in
assessing the benefits of section 316(b) regulation of Phase III facilities. The primary issue with regard to these
studies is whether their results can support a defensible estimate of survival substantially different from the value
of 0% survival assumed by EPA in assessing benefits for the section 316(b) rulemaking. Given that live
organisms can be found in the discharge canals of many cooling water intake systems, it may be true that not all
organisms are necessarily killed as they pass through the cooling systems of all facilities under all operating
conditions. However, the results of the 37 studies, summarized in Table A7-1, suggest that the proportion alive in
the samples is highly variable and unpredictable among species and among facilities. The studies document that
some species (e.g., herrings, bay anchovy) are very sensitive to entrainment and experience 0% survival with
calculated mortality rates of 100% at most facilities. Other species (e.g., striped bass) may be more resistant to
entrainment effects. However, even for these apparently hardy species, some studies yielded ranges of
entrainment survival estimates that included zero and latent survival values very close to zero. Multiple studies at
the same facility (e.g., Bowline Point, Indian Point) yielded survival values for some species (e.g., striped bass)
that varied substantially among years, most likely due to a combination of changes in environmental conditions,
A7-15
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
changes in plant operations, and changes in sampling and testing procedures. The studies indicate that any
survival is dependent on temperature, but the effect may vary greatly depending on intake water temperature,
plant design, fish species, and life stages. Few of the studies could conclusively document and quantify the
specific stressors causing the observed mortalities, and no rigorous, validated method or model was put forward
that would allow survival rates to be accurately predicted. Another major constraint on the use of these findings in
this rulemaking process is that they cover very few species, and primarily in a single geographical region of the
country, thus providing no basis for prediction or projection of effects to other species in other parts of the
country. These studies as well as other literature also show that findings from one facility cannot be considered to
be valid for another facility, since many site-specific and facility-specific factors may affect the magnitude of
mortality that occurs. The current state of knowledge would not support predictions of entrainment survival for
the range of species, life stages, regions, and facilities involved in EPA's benefits estimates.
The potential usefulness of the findings of the studies reviewed is further compromised by the numerous factors
that can influence the representativeness, accuracy, and precision of the survival estimates presented, and that are
often not rigorously accounted for in the studies reviewed. These factors are described in section A7-2, and some
of the deficiencies of the studies with regard to these factors are elaborated in section A7-3. The most frequent
and serious deficiencies noted (e.g., high control mortalities, omission of fragmented or unidentifiable organisms,
and uncertainty regarding post-discharge survival) compromise the accuracy and precision of the survival
estimates. In many of the studies reviewed, the precision of the survival estimates was not rigorously assessed,
and thus the uncertainty associated with the estimates is not known. If the factors addressed in this review were
taken into account in an entrainment survival study, EPA believes that the estimates of survival that would result
would not be substantially different from zero.
EPA acknowledges that some of the studies performed at some facilities were designed in a more rigorous manner
than others in order to minimize the influence of factors that could compromise findings (e.g., the use of a larval
table for assessing physiological condition) and included comprehensive sampling in an attempt to enhance the
accuracy and precision of the survival estimates. However, while such studies may have provided estimates for
the facility studied under the environmental and operational conditions that occurred at the time the study was
performed, these studies do not provide a basis for generalizing specific survival rates for all or even the same
species at other facilities or at the same facility in other years. In addition, there exists the possibility of additional
post-discharge (latent) mortality when entrained organisms are returned to the receiving waterbody. Overall, the
unreliability, variability, and unpredictability of entrainment survival estimates evident from EPA's review of the
entrainment survival studies support the use of the assumption of 0% survival in the benefits assessment because
there is no clear indication of any defensible estimate of survival substantially different from 0% to use to
calculate benefits for section 316(b) regulatory development.
A7-16
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Summary Tables of Entrainment Survival Studies
,47-77
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Anclote Power Plant Sampling: Dates: Sept. 25-29, October 9-11, and November 1-2
Samples collection frequency: a few days per month
A R' FT Times of peak abundance: autumn months when densities may be not the highest
Anclote Kiver, b L Time. mostly at mghtj some late afternoon to evening
Number of replicates: varied between 5-25 per month
1985 Study Intake and discharge sampling: paired number, timing unknown
Elapsed collection time: 20-30 minutes
CTT Fn 'rnnmental Method: 400 |im mesh net with 1 m diameter and 5 gallon plastic bucket with 500 |im mesh side
panels
Services, 1996 Depm: mid-depth and surface
Intake location: unknown
Discharge location: condenser discharge and point of discharge in canal
Water quality parameters measured: pH, DO, salinity
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: operated at peak load to maximize T, 1-2 Units
Number of pumps in operation: varied due to sampling location, 0-4 pumps
Temperature: Discharge temperature: 28.8-38.3 °C
AT average: 5.4-7.3 °C
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 8
Total number of samples collected: 120
Total number of organisms collected: 41,196
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: approx. equal
Most abundant species: not classified to species level
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 24 hours
In several replicates, more organisms were counted after 24 hours in jar
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 64% for fish larvae; 73% for Amphipoda
44% for Chaetognatha; 72% for crab larvae
72% for Caridean shrimp
Initial discharge survival range: 8-47% for fish larvae; 29-58% for Amphipoda
28-35% for Chaetognatha; 74-80% for crab larvae
45-66% for Caridean shrimp
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / Intake survival
Mean survival for each replicate was reported as survival estimate per species
Confidence intervals (95%) and standard deviations were calculated
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: none collected
Larval survival: decreased markedly within hours of collection
Raw data: were provided to verify results
Temperature effects: unknown
Mechanical effects: unknown
Quality control: QA/QC officer oversaw sorting and sample handling
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-18
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Bergum Power Station Sampling: Dates: April 27-June 1
Samples collection frequency: approximately once per week
_ Times of peak abundance: coincided with abundance of larvae and juveniles
Bergumermeer, Tme. unknown
Netherlands Number of replicates: unknown
Intake and discharge sampling: unclear if paired sampling
1976 Studv Elapsed collection time: 3 minutes
Method: conical net with 0.5 mm mesh and 0.5m diameter
Depth: unknown
Hadderingh, 1978 Intake iocation: unknown
Discharge location: in outlet before weir
Water quality parameters measured: none
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: 40 cm/sec
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Intake temperature: 10.8-21.6
Discharge temperature: 16.7-24.6 °C
AT ranged from 2.4-8.0 °C
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 6
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: unknown at intake, 1,148 at discharge
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
approximately 10 million organisms entrained per day in May
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: unknown
Most abundant species: smelt, perches
Stunned larvae: unknown if included in survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in floating buckets in the outlet canal for 24 hours
5-50% appeared to be dead in buckets floating in outlet canal
However, latent survival was not explicitly studied
Data: survival by sampling date and then averaged
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 54-100% for smelt
81-96% for perches
Initial discharge survival range: 10-28% for smelt
32-74% for perches
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / Intake survival
Confidence intervals and standard deviations were not presented.
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: no eggs collected
Larval survival: increased in samples later in year, may be due to larger sized
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: not discussed
Mechanical effects: not discussed
Quality control: not discussed
Peer review: work done for facility, published in Applied Limnology
A7-19
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Bowline Point Sampling: Dates: June 3-July date unknown
Generating Station Samples collection frequency: 1-4 times per week
Times of peak abundance: sampling intended to coincide with peak densities
Time: day or night
Hudson River, NY Number of replicates: unknown
Intake and discharge sampling: unknown if paired
1975 StudV Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: larval collection tables
Depth: unknown
Ecological Analysts, Intake location: in front of intake
1976a Discharge location: from standpipe connected to discharge pipe of Unit 2
Water quality parameters measured: conductivity, DO, pH
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: intake: 1.5-2 m/sec, discharge 2-4.6 m/sec
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: AT range: 0.5-12.1 °C
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 37
Total number of samples collected: 400
Total number of organisms collected: 4,643
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: no, more at intake
Higher percentage of larvae were collected at the discharge station in the later weeks of the
collection period. Conversely, a higher percentage of larvae were collected at the intake at
the beginning weeks of the collection period. This discrepancy in larval collection
combined with higher survival rates later in the spawning season accounts for the bias
which results in higher survival rates at the discharge station. The study acknowledges this
bias and concludes that it is responsible for the higher discharge survival estimates.
Most abundant species: striped bass, white perch and bay anchovy
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion; most died within hours
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 96 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 81% for striped bass
56% for white perch
9% for bay anchovy
Initial discharge survival range: 74% for striped bass
68% for white perch
2% for bay anchovy
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / Intake survival
Confidence intervals (95%) were presented
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: no
Egg survival: not studied
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 3 hours of collection.
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: too few samples collected to establish relationship
Mechanical effects: extent was not discussed
Quality control: color coded labeling, routine checks on sorting accuracy
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-20
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Bowline Point Sampling: Dates: May 18-July 26
Generating Station Samples collection frequency: approx. 4 nights per week
Times of peak abundance: for all species except Atlantic tomcod
Time: at night
Hudson River, JN Y Number of replicates: stated average of 10 per sampling trip
Intake and discharge sampling: sorted simultaneously
1976 StudV Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: larval collection table with 4 inch diameter trash pump
Depth: unknown
Ecological Analysts, Intake location: in front of Unit 1 trash racks
1977 Discharge location: from standpipes of discharge at Units 1 or 2
Water quality parameters measured: conductivity, pH, and DO
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: intake: 0.11-3 m/sec, discharge: 3-4.6 m/sec
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: varied between 1 and 2
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: discharge range: 29.0-35.9 °C
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 39
Total number of samples collected: 688
Total number of organisms collected: 2,795
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: only included in count if >50% was present
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: no, very different
Most abundant species: striped bass, white perch, atlantic tomcod, bay anchovy, herrings
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 96 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 81-90% for striped bass
62% for white perch
54-82% for Atlantic tomcod
7-53% for bay anchovy
35% for herrings
Initial discharge survival range: 0-54% for striped bass
0-33% for white perch
29-94% for Atlantic tomcod
0-10% for bay anchovy
20% for herrings
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / intake survival
Confidence intervals (95%) were presented
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: not studied
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 12 hours of collection.
Raw data: were not provided to verify results.
Temperature effects: trend of decreasing survival when temperatures >30 °C
Mechanical effects: unknown extent
Quality control: color coded labels, immediate checks of sorted samples, SOPs
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-21
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Bowline Point Sampling: Dates: March 7-July 15
Generating Station Samples collection frequency: 5 nights per week
Times of peak abundance: covered of peak densities of most targeted species
Time: at night
Hudson River, JN Y Number of replicates: varied between 2 and 10 per site
Intake and discharge sampling: paired
1977 Studv Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: larval table with pump, 2 pumps at intake; 2 tables at discharge
ambient water injection system added to reduce prolonged temp, exposure
Ecological Analysts, Depm: middie to bottom at mtakej at standpipes for discharge
1978a Intake location: in front of Unit 1 trash rack
Discharge location from standpipes of either Unit 1 or 2, depending on operation
Water quality parameters measured: conductivity, pH and DO
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: intake: 0.11-2 m/sec; discharge 3-4.6 m/sec
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: varied between 1 and 2
Number of pumps in operation: 2 pumps throttled or 2 pumps full
Temperature: Intake range: 3.7-27 °C
AT range: not provided
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 46
Total number of samples collected: 736
Total number of organisms collected: 4,071
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: included in count if >50% of organism was present
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: no, very different
Most abundant species: striped bass, white perch, bay anchovy, herrings and silversides
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 96 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 74% for striped bass
69% for white perch
0-16% for bay anchovy
54% for herrings
37% for silversides
Initial discharge survival range: 71-72% for striped bass
34% for white perch
0-2% for bay anchovy
23% for herrings
16% for silversides
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / Intake survival
Standard errors were presented
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: not studied
Larval survival: survival increased with larval length
Raw data: were not provided to verify results.
Temperature effects: decreased survival >33 °C
Mechanical effects: unknown
Quality control: color coded labels, checks of sorting efficiency
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-22
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Bowline Point Sampling: Dates: March 13-October 16
Generating Station Samples collection frequency: 1-5 times per week
Times of peak abundance: majority of samples in June and July
Time: at night
Hudson River, JN Y Number of replicates: varied between 1-10 per sampling date.
Intake and discharge sampling: mostly paired, not all sites sampled all dates
1978 StudV Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: pump/larval table combination; also floating larval table
Depth: at bottom for intake and unspecified for discharge
Ecological Analysts, Intake location: in front of trash racks of Unit 1 or 2
1979b Discharge location: at either Unit 1 or 2 in standpipes from discharge pipe floating larval table
used for sampling at point of discharge
Water quality parameters measured: salinity, pH, DO, conductivity
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: intake: 0.15-0.23 m/s
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: varied between 1 and 2
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: unknown
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 40
Total number of samples collected: 609
Total number of organisms collected: unknown
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: varied
Most abundant species: striped bass, bay anchovy, white perch and herrings
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in holding jars for 96 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period.
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 48-49% for striped bass
39% for white perch
4% for bay anchovy
19% for herrings
Initial discharge survival range: 51-63% for striped bass
19% for white perch
0% for bay anchovy
23% for herrings
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / Intake survival
Standard error were presented
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: not studied
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 12 hours of collection
Survival increased with larval length
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: no survival for YSL for any species at temps. >30 °C
no survival for PYSL for any species at temps. >33 °C
majority of samples collected at temperatures <30 °C
Mechanical effects: recirculation of water occurs
Quality control: color coded labels, double checks, sorting efficiency checks
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-23
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Bowline Point Sampling: Dates: May 23-June 27
Generating Station Samples collection frequency: 3-5 days per week
Times of peak abundance: timed to coincide with peak densities
Time: 1400 to 2200 hours
Hudson River, JN Y Number of replicates: varied between 0-9 per sampling date, generally 7
Intake and discharge sampling: mostly paired, initiated simultaneously
1979 StudV Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: intake: floating larval table or rear draw sampling flume discharge: pumpless plankton
sampling flume or pumped larval table
Ecological Analysts, Depm: intake: mid-depth (4.6 m); discharge: 2 m below surface
198 la Intake location: in front of trash racks
Discharge location: at standpipe and diffuser
Water quality parameters measured: conductivity, pH, DO
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: intake: 1.5-3.0 m/sec; discharge 3-4.6m/sec
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: varied, power generated on only 5 sampling dates
Number of pumps in operation: operated through sampling
Temperature: AT range: not provided
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 19
Total number of samples collected: 435
Total number of organisms collected: 1,212
Number of organisms entrained per year: estimated 1.5 million striped bass
2.7 million white perch
Fragmented organisms: included in count if 50% of organism was present
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: approx. equal
Most abundant species: white perch, bay anchovy, striped bass, herrings
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 96 hours.
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period.
Controls: Survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control.
Initial intake survival range: 63-71% for striped bass; 39-63% for white perch
4-14% for bay anchovy; 56-61% for herrings
Initial discharge survival range: 35-41% for striped bass; 26-35% for white perch
0-4% for bay anchovy; 30-31% for herrings
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / Intake survival
Standard errors were presented.
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: determined by translucency and hatching success
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 12 hours of collection.
Raw data: were not provided to verify results.
Temperature effects: little survival at discharge temperatures >30 °C
Mechanical effects: due to no power generation on the majority of sampling dates, results give
indication of extent of mechanical induced mortality
This study included analysis of diel patterns of ichthyoplankton abundance in comparison to
diel patterns of plant generation. Facility tends to operate at 85 to 95% of capacity in the
mid-afternoon hours which results in higher AT's and discharge temperatures. Facility
tends to operate at minimum level, 20 to 30% capacity, in early morning when larval
abundance is high and entrainment survival samples collected. Sample collection during
the hours when the facility is operating at minimum levels of percent capacity, and at times
with correspondingly lower AT's and discharge temperatures, may add bias to the results
since more organisms will be exposed to lower levels of temperature stress. The peak
abundance for each species is only slightly higher than abundance throughout the day.
Thus, collectively, more organisms may be exposed to higher temperatures and have higher
mortality rates but are not reflected in samples collected at night.
Quality control: color coded labels, check of sorting efficiency, SOPs
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-24
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Braidwood Nuclear Sampling: Dates: June 1-July 5
Station Samples collection frequency: 3 samples taken in 35 days
Times of peak abundance: peak densities of eggs and larvae were found in May
Time: varied; day and night at intake, only day at discharge
Ivankakee River, IL Number of replicates: varied, 8-14 per sampling date
Intake and discharge sampling: more discharge replicates, not always same day
1988 Studv Elapsed collection time: 2 minutes
Method: plankton net with 1.0m opening, net rinsed out in bucket
Depth: unknown
.LA Science and Intake location: in holding pond into which river water was pumped
Technology, 1990 Discharge location: downstream of outfall in discharge canal
Water quality parameters measured: none
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: 0.4-0.6 ft/sec
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: not given
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 3
Total number of samples collected: 62
Total number of organisms collected: 294
Samples, which were collected after peak densities, contained fewer and larger organism which
may in turn have higher survival rates.
Number of organisms entrained per year: estimate 5.8-11.2 million eggs/larvae
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: more at intake
Most abundant species: minnows and sunfish
Stunned larvae: included in survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: were omitted from all calculations of survival
Thus 67% of those dead in the intake samples and 21% of those dead in the discharge samples
were omitted from the survival proportions
Latent survival: not studied
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control.
Initial intake survival range: 60% for minnows (17% including dead-opaque)
78% for sunfish (54% including dead-opaque)
Initial discharge survival range: no minnows collected
80% for sunfish (76% including dead-opaque)
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / Intake survival
Survival proportions calculated by dividing number of live larvae by number of live plus dead-
transparent larvae
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: were not presented.
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: data not given
Larval survival: not studied
Raw data: were not provided to verify results.
Temperature effects: not studied
Mechanical effects: not studied
Quality control: not discussed
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
,47-25
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Brayton Point Sampling: Dates: April 30-August 27, 1997 and February 26-July 29, 1998
Samples collection frequency: weekly
,_ TT _ -.,. Times of peak abundance: not discussed specifically
Mount Hope Bay, MA Tme. vaned> ^ or mght
Number of replicates: varied between 14 and 77
1997-1998 Study Intake and discharge sampling: not paired, 2 tables located in discharge canal
Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
T , A/r , , p Method: pump/larval table combination
Lawler, Matusky & „ ,, •, ,F ,, ,. . , , _ , , , ,. , ,. ,
' . J Depth: mid-depth for intake, 2-4 m below surface at discharge
Skelly Engineers, 1999 Intake iocation: directly in front of Unit 3 intake screens
Discharge location: middle of discharge canal or from Unit 4 discharge pipe
Water quality parameters measured: conductance and salinity periodically
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: intake range: 4.5-28.0 °C
discharge range: 11-45 °C
AT data not provided
Biocide use: samples collected when not in use
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 41
Total number of samples collected: 2692 in 1997; 4137 in 1998
Total number of organisms collected: 2,256 in intake; 27,574 in discharge
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal no. of organisms collected at intake and discharge: 4-79X more in discharge
Most abundant species: bay anchovy, American sand lance
Stunned larvae: assumed stunned larvae did not survive due to increased predation risk
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in holding cups in aquarium racks for 96 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged with both sampling years combined
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 0% for American sand lance
4% for tautog
0% for bay anchovy
44-46% for windowpane flounder
32% for winter flounder
Initial discharge survival range: 0% for American sand lance
4% for tautog
0% for bay anchovy
29-30% for windowpane flounder
33-38% for winter flounder
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: discharge survival / intake survival
Standard errors were presented
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: not studied
Larval survival: survival increased with larval length, decreased markedly within 4 hours of
holding in latent studies
Raw data: were provided by species and not by sample to verify results
Temperature effects: survival decrease markedly at temps >20 °C
Mechanical effects: unknown extent
Quality control: continuous sampling plan which included reanalysis of samples
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
.47-26
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Cayuga Generating Sampling: Dates: May 17-31 and June 8-22
pianf Samples collection frequency: daily
Times of peak abundance: highest average densities sampled were June 8-10
Time: 1900 to 0300 hours
Wabash River, IN Number of replicates: varied between 0-6 per sampling date.
Intake and discharge sampling: simultaneous sampling, transit time = 36 mins
1979 StudV Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: pump / larval table collection system
Depth: intake: 2 and 5 m below surface, discharge: 3-4 m below surface
Ecological Analysts, Intake location: in front of intake structure
1980a Discharge location: where discharge of Units 1 and 2 enter canal
also cooling tower discharge in discharge canal
Water quality parameters measured: DO
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: varied, 2-4
Temperature: intake range: 17.6-24.3 °C
discharge range: 29.4-33.3 °C
AT ranged from 8.4-11.8 °C
Biocide use: occurs daily, but ceased at least 2 hours before sampling
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 24
Total number of samples collected: 80
Total number of organisms collected: 2,556
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: 13-14.6% were damaged
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: more at intake
Most abundant species: suckers, perches, carps, temperate basses
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: 48 hour observation in aerated glass jars of filtered river water
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 86-98% for suckers
28-92% for carps and minnows
50-86% for perches
Initial discharge survival range: 75-92% for suckers
12-74% for carps and minnows
43-69% for perches
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival/ Intake survival
Confidence intervals: were not presented; standard errors were calculated standard error
sometime as high as survival
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: not studied
Larval survival: latent effects were not seen until 48 hours after collection
Raw data: were provided to verify results
Temperature effects: lower survival for all species at temperatures above 30 °C
Mechanical effects: survival decreased when number of pumps increased
Quality control: sorting efficiency checks and color coded labels
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
,47-27
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Connecticut Yankee Sampling: Dates: June 30-July 29
Atomic Power Samples collection frequency: weekly
_, Times of peak abundance: sampling dates were estimated times of peak larvae
Company Time: varied throughout day to avoid biocide application
Number of replicates: sampled in triplicate, data from replicates combined
Connecticut River, CT Intake and discharge sampling: samples taken successively not all sites sampled on all dates
Elapsed collection time: 5 minutes
1970 St H Method: conical nylon plankton net with 1 L plastic bucket attached to cod end portable water
* table for maintaining temperature during counting
Depth: median depth at intake; surface, middle and bottom of discharge because dead fish in
Marcy, 1971 canal may sink or float due to immobility or changes in specific gravity of water, thus
giving inconsistent results
Intake location: unknown
Discharge location: outfall weir and 3 location in discharge canal
Water quality parameters measured: DO
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: 1-2 ft/sec, may approach 8 ft/sec
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Discharge temperature: 28.2-41 °C
AT ranged from 6-12.1 °C
Biocide use: sampling avoided daily application of 13% sodium hydrochlorite
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 7
Total number of samples collected: 102
Total number of organisms collected: 2,681
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: majority of dead fish were mangled
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: unknown
Most abundant species: alewife and blueback herring
Stunned larvae: not discussed
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: not studied
Data: all data for all species combined, survival calculated for each date
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 29-100% for all species combined
Initial discharge survival range: 0-7.5% for all species combined
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: number live per cubic meter in each discharge sample/
number live per cubic meter in intake for each day
Confidence intervals and standard deviations: were not presented
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: July 29
Egg survival: not sampled
Larval survival: no organisms were found alive at end of discharge canal at
temperatures >30 °C
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: at discharge temp. >33.5 °C, no living organisms sampled
Mechanical effects: not discussed
Quality control: not discussed
Peer review: published in notes of Journal Fisheries Research Board of Canada
A7-28
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Connecticut Yankee Sampling: Dates: June 2-24, 1971 and June 27-July 13, 1972 (mechanical only)
Atomic Power Samples collection frequency: approximately once per week
_, Times of peak abundance: unknown
Company Time: afternoons and evenings
Number of replicates: three at each station although at three different depths data were
Connecticut River, CT combined for each station
Intake and discharge sampling: collected successively at the 5 sites
1971 1972 St H Elapsed collection time: 5 minutes
* Method: conical nylon plankton net with 0.39 mm mesh and 1L plastic bucket
Depth: surface, middle, and bottom
Marcy, 1973 Intake location: unknown
Discharge location: below weir and 3 points along discharge canal
Water quality parameters measured: none
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: 0.3-0.6 m/sec, may approach 2.4 m/sec
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown in 1971, no power generation in 1972
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Intake temperature: 16-26 °C (1971); 19.9-28 °C (1972)
Discharge temperature: 29-35 °C (1971 only)
AT ranged from 9-13 °C (1971 only)
Biocide use: 1972 study, chemical mortality indistinguishable from mechanical
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 2 (1971) and 7 (1972)
Total number of samples collected: 30 (1971) and 246 (1972) often 2-3 times as many samples
collected at discharge
Total number of organisms collected: 1,068 (1971) and 10,271 (1972)
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown, estimated entrainment is 1.7-5.8% of
nonscreenable fish which pass facility
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal no. of organisms collected at intake and discharge: 4X more in discharge lower numbers
collected at end of canal may be due to dead fish settling out of water column
Most abundant species: alewife and blueback herring
Stunned larvae: were included as live unless they had begun to turn opaque
Dead and opaque organisms: only opaque organisms were counted as dead
Latent survival: not studied
Data: replicate data combined; survival calculated per sampling day
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 64-100% for all species sampled (1971)
Initial discharge survival range: 0% for all species sampled (1971)
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: number live per cubic meter in each discharge sample/
number live per cubic meter in intake for each day
Confidence intervals and standard deviations were not presented.
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: none sampled
Larval survival: no survival anywhere in discharge at temperatures >29 °C
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: organisms exposed to elevated temp, for 50-100 min estimated as causing
20% of mortality most fish are dead at the end of the 1.14 mile canal
Mechanical effects: 1972 study indicated that 72-87% is mechanical mortality
Quality control: not discussed
Peer review: published in Journal Fisheries Research Board of Canada
A7-29
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Contra Costa Power Sampling: Dates: April 28-July 10
pianf Samples collection frequency: once per week
Times of peak abundance: unknown
Time: varied, about 25% of all samples collected at night
San Joaquin River, CA Number of replicates: typically 3
Intake and discharge sampling: paired at closest time and temperature
1976 StudV Elapsed collection time: 1-2 minutes
Method: 505 micron mech conical nylon plankton net with 0.58m plastic collecting tubes on
cod end; towed net on boat at 0.6 ft/sec
Stevens and Finlayson, Depth: mid-depth
1978 Intake location: at intake for units 6 and 7
Discharge location: at discharge for units 1-5 and units 6-7
Water quality parameters measured: none
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Intake temperature: 19-30 °C
Discharge temperature 19-38 °C
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 6
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: 966 (1,606 at north shore control)
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: enumerated in one replicate tow higher proportion of unidentifiable
fragments in discharge
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: more at intake
Most abundant species: striped bass
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: not studied
Data: was summarized by mean larval length
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control additional control on
north shore to determine background mortality control site at north shore away from intake
had lower mortality rates
Initial intake survival range: 33-90% for striped bass
recirculated water may be cause of some intake mortality
Initial discharge survival range: 0-50% for striped bass
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: paired discharge survival divided by paired intake survival
Confidence intervals and standard deviations were not presented.
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: not studied
Larval survival: increased survival with greater larval length
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: mortality increased with increase in discharge temperature higher
mortality with discharge temp. >31 and AT >7 °C linear regression showed that half died
attemps>33.3 °C
0% survival at temperatures of 38 °C
Mechanical effects: stated not as much of an effects as temperature
Quality control: not discussed
Peer review: study conducted by California Fish and Game with funds provided by facility
A7-30
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Danskammer Point Sampling: Dates: May 29-November 18
Ceneratinp Station Samples collection frequency: varied from once every 2 weeks to 4 times per week
Times of peak abundance: increased frequency during spawning
Time: varied, generally overnight
Hudson River, JN Y Number of replicates: varied, ranged from 1 to 12
Intake and discharge sampling: usually paired
1975 Studv Elapsed collection time: unknown
Method: pump/larval table
Depth: mid-depth for intake, unspecified for discharge
Ecological Analysts, Intake location: in canal in front of traveling screens
1976b Discharge location: outlet of Unit 3 to Hudson River
Water quality parameters measured: none
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: varied between 1 and 2
Temperature: Intake temperature range: 21-26 °C
Discharge temperature range: not provided
AT ranged from 0-10 °C
Biocide use not used during sampling; noted that chlorination will reduce survival
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 29
Total number of samples collected: 372
Total number of organisms collected: 1,655
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal no. of organisms collected at intake / discharge: up to 2X more in discharge
Most abundant species: herrings, striped bass and white perch
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 96 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 0-50% for striped bass
33-100% for white perch
63-100% for herrings
Initial discharge survival range: 0-39% for striped bass
38-80% for white perch
20-22% for herrings
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / Intake survival
Confidence intervals and standard deviations: were not presented.
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Significantly lower survival in discharge: herring PYSL
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: none collected
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 3 hours of collection.
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: significantly lower survival when AT >10 °C and discharge
temperature >30 °C
Mechanical effects: not discussed
Quality control: samples double checked and data entry monitored
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-31
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Fort Calhoun Nuclear Sampling: Dates: October 1973-June 1977
Station Samples collection frequency: 5-24 times per year
Times of peak abundance: same frequency all year round
Time: unknown
Missouri River, NE Number of replicates: unknown
Intake and discharge sampling: unknown if timing was paired
1973-1977 studv Elapsed collection time: unknown
Method: plankton net with 571 |im mesh and 0.75 m diameter
Depth: unknown
Carter, 1978 Intake location: in river near intake
Discharge location: near discharge in river immediately downstream of intake
Water quality parameters measured: none
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: varied, 25-97% of full power or shut down
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Discharge temperature: 27.0-36.9 °C during summer samples
AT ranged from 0.6-13.5 °C
Biocide use: unspecified number of samples collected during chlorination
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 89 (16 when facility was shut down)
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: 24,535 macroinvertebrates
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: no, varied
Most abundant species: Ephemeroptera, Hydropsychidae, Chironomidae
Stunned larvae: macroinvertebrates studied
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: not studied
Data: was summarized and averaged over entire sampling period
Controls: Survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 12-26% for Ephemeroptera
42-51% for Hydropsychidae
35-60% for Chironomidae
Initial discharge survival range: 18-32% for Ephemeroptera
47-56% for Hydropsychidae
43-66% for Chironomidae
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Average differential mortality
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: were calculated but not presented
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: not collected
Larval survival: macroinvertebrates only were studied
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: discussed but data not presented
Mechanical effects: studied during 16 dates when facility was shut down
Quality control: unknown
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-32
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Ginna Generating Sampling: Dates: June 11-24 and August 8-21
Station Samples collection frequency: 5 times per week
Times of peak abundance: to coincide with peak densities of targeted species
Time: late afternoon or early evening
Lake Ontario, NY Number of replicates: unknown
Intake and discharge sampling: simultaneous sampling at both sites
1980 Studv Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: Intake: pump to floating rear-draw sampling flume
Discharge: floating rear-draw pumpless plankton sampling flume
rLCOlogical Analysts, AISO usecj ambient water injection to reduce exposure to high temps.
1981c Depth: unknown
Intake location: at screenhouse intake after flow through 3,100 ft intake tunnel
Discharge location: discharge canal
Water quality parameters measured: none
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Discharge range: 18.5-34.4 °C
AT ranged from 8-10 °C
Biocide use: sampled 4 hours after routine injections
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 20
Total number of samples collected: 255
Total number of organisms collected: 664
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: varied
Most abundant species: alewife
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars of filtered water for 48 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged over the sampling month
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 16.3% for alewife eggs
39% for alewife larvae
58-71% for rainbow smelt
Initial discharge survival range: 62.5% for alewife eggs; 16% hatching success
0% for Alewife larvae
0% for rainbow smelt
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival/Intake survival
In June, only one larvae was found alive in the discharge samples
Standard errors were presented
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Too few of many species were collected at the two sites (only 1 or 2 per site) to provide any
reliable estimate of entrainment survival
Egg survival: determined by translucency and hatching success
Raw data: were provided to verify results
Temperature effects: none survived at any temperature
Mechanical effects: none survived at any temperature
Quality control: SOPs, color coded labels, sorting efficiency checks
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-33
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Indian Point Sampling: Dates: Jun 1-July 15
Generating Station Samples collection frequency: twice per week
Times of peak abundance: expected to coincide with peak densities
Time: 1800-0200 hours
Hudson River, JN Y Number of replicates: varied between 5-7 per sampling date.
Intake and discharge sampling:
1977 Studv Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: pump/larval table with ambient water injection to reduce temp, stress
Depth: unknown
Ecological Analysts, Intake location: at intake of Units 2 and 3
1978c Discharge location: discharge for Unit 3 and discharge common to all Units
Water quality parameters measured: DO, pH and conductivity
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: varied between 2 and 3, outage at Unit 2 from 7/4
Number of pumps in operation: 6, at or near full capacity
Temperature: Intake range: 18.8-26.4 °C
Discharge range: 22.7-34.9 °C
AT during study not provided
Biocide use: unknown
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 7
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: 4,097
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed specifically, however, there were 115 Morone spp.
organisms which could not be further identified to the species level and there were 55
organisms which were mutilated to the point of being unidentifiable to even the family
level of organization. Entrainment survival may have been even lower if these mutilated
samples were included in the assessment.
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: more at intake
Most abundant species: striped bass, white perch, bay anchovy and herrings
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: in aerated holding container in ambient water bath for 96 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 0-11% for bay anchovy; 60-77% striped bass
66% for white perch; 36% for herrings
Initial discharge survival range: 3% for bay anchovy; 29-45% for striped bass
15% for white perch; 11 % for herrings
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / Intake survival
Standard errors were presented
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Significantly lower survival in discharge: striped bass YSL and PYSL
white perch PYSL
bay anchovy PYSL
herring PYSL
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: not studied
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: no determination that temperature had a significant effect
Mechanical effects: unknown
Quality control: color coded labels and immediate checks of sorted samples
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-34
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Indian Point Sampling: Dates: May 1-July 12
Ceneratinp Station Samples collection frequency: 2 consecutive days per week
Times of peak abundance: coincided with spawning of targeted species
Time: 1800-0200 hours
Hudson River, JN Y Number of replicates: approximately 6 per date
Intake and discharge sampling: simultaneous
1978 StudV Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: pump/ larval table with ambient water injection
Depth: 1-3 m below surface, approximately mid-depth
Ecological Analysts, Intake location: Unit 2 and 3 intake
1979c Discharge location: Unit 2 and 3 discharge, discharge point common to all units
Water quality parameters measured: conductivity, pH and DO
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: varied between 1 and 2
Number of pumps in operation: varied between 5-11, near full capacity
Temperature: Intake range: 11.2-24.3 °C
Discharge range: 19-36 °C
AT ranged from 9-12 °C
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 22
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: 4,496
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: more at discharge
Most abundant species: striped bass, white perch, bay anchovy and herrings
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 96 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 26-48% for striped bass; 15-48% for white perch
18% for herring; 2% for bay anchovy
Initial discharge survival range: 0-34% for striped bass; 0-37% for white perch
0-8% for herring; 0% for bay anchovy
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival/ Intake survival
Standard errors were presented
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Significantly lower survival at discharge: striped bass YSL, PYSL and juveniles
white perch PYSL
herring PYSL
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: none were alive in either the intake or discharge samples
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 24 hours of collection.
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: at temps. >30 °C, no striped bass or white perch survived also 0%
survived when both Unit 2 and 3 were running
Mechanical effects: not discussed
Quality control: sorting efficiency checks, color coded labeling, SOPs
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-35
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Indian Point Sampling: Dates: March 12-22 and April 30-August 14
Ceneratinp Station Samples collection frequency: March: 4 times per week, rest was 2 consecutive days per week
Times of peak abundance: coincided with spawning of targeted species
Time: 1700 to 0200
Hudson River, NY Number of replicates: unknown
Intake and discharge sampling: simultaneous sampling
1979 StudV Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: March sampling: two pump/larval table combination
April-August sampling: rear-draw plankton sampling flume at intake pumpless plankton
Ecological Analysts, sampling flume at discharge
1981d Depth: mid-depth for intake, 1-5 m below surface for discharge
Intake location: of Units 2 and 3
Discharge location: in discharge canal for Unit 3 and at end of canal
Water quality parameters measured: conductivity, pH and DO
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: one unit not operating March 20-26 only one continuously April-
August
Number of pumps in operation: varied between 5 and 12
Temperature: Discharge range: 12.0-21.9 °C in March; 24-32.9 °C
AT data not provided
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 8 in March; 32 in April-August
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: 478 in March; 2,362 April-August
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: varied
Most abundant species: Atlantic tomcod, striped bass, white perch, herring, bay anchovy
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars with filtered water for 96 hours
Data: sorted by discharge temperature in March; combined all April-August
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 43-68% for Atlantic tomcod; 39-56% for striped bass
13-33% for white perch; 23% for herrings
10% for bay anchovy
Initial discharge survival range: 14-46% for Atlantic tomcod; 62-77% for striped bass
24-70% for white perch; 28% for herrings
6% for bay anchovies
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: For the fish larvae samples, a difference in stress
associated with the different sampling techniques at the intake and discharge was given as
the reason why discharge survival was higher than intake survival for each taxa sampled.
Thus, entrainment survival was not calculated.
Standard errors were presented
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: determined by translucency and hatching success;
33% hatched in discharge samples; 44% in intake samples
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 3 hours of collection.
Raw data: were not provided to verify results.
Temperature effects: no white perch or striped bass survival at temps. >33 °C
Mechanical effects: unknown extent
Quality control: sorting efficiency checks, color coded labels and SOPs
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-36
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Indian Point Sampling: Dates: April 30-July 10
Ceneratinp Station Samples collection frequency: 4 consecutive nights per week
Times of peak abundance: coincided with primary spawning of target species
Time: 1600-0200 hours
Hudson River, NY Number of replicates: unknown
Intake and discharge sampling: initiated simultaneously
1980 Studv Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: intake: rear-draw plankton sampling flume mounted on raft discharge: pumpless
plankton sampling flume mounted on raft
Ecological Analysts, Depm: unknown
1982b Intake location: Unit 3 intake
Discharge location: discharge port number 1
Water quality parameters measured: conductivity, DO, pH
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: intake: 0.3 m/sec; discharge 3 m/sec
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: varied between 1 and 2, Unit 2 offline June 4-11
Number of pumps in operation: varied between 5 and 11
Temperature: intake range: 11.3-25.1 °C
discharge range: 23-31 °C
AT data not presented
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 44
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: 2,355
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: more at discharge
Most abundant species: striped bass, white perch, bay anchovies
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 96 hours
Data: combined by discharge temperature
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 95% for striped bass
93% for white perch
32% for bay anchovies
40% recirculation can occur so intake mortality may include organisms which were dead
due to a previous passage through the facility
Initial discharge survival range: 50-81% for striped bass
0-90% for white perch
0-4% for bay anchovy
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / intake survival
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: were not presented.
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: hatching success: 82% in intake, 47% in discharge
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 3 hours of collection.
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: little survival at discharge temps >33 °C
Mechanical effects: unknown
Quality control: sorting efficiency checks, color coded labels and SOPs
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-37
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Indian Point Sampling: Dates: May 27-June 29
Generating Station Samples collection frequency: daily
Times of peak abundance: sampling did not occur dunng time of peak densities
Time: daytime, switched to nighttime after June 11 due to low sample sizes
Hudson River, NY Number of replicates: unknown
Intake and discharge sampling: simultaneous sampling
1985 Studv Elapsed collection time: 13-15 minutes (200 m3)
Method: barrel sampler with 2 coaxial cylinders with 505 |im mesh one sampler at intake; 2 at
discharge
EA Science and Depth: unknown
Technology, 1986 Intake location: in front of Unit 2 intake
Discharge location: in discharge canal downstream from Unit 2 discharge
Water quality parameters measured: salinity, DO, pH and conductivity
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: discharge: 2.8-10 ft/sec
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: varied between 1 and 2
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Intake range: 20.3-22.9 °C
Discharge range: 26.6-30.3 °C
AT range: 4.6-8.5 °C
Biocide use: residual chlorine not measured
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 49
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: 457
Cited low efficiency of sampling gear as part of reason for low numbers of organisms sampled
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal no. of organisms collected at intake and discharge: 3X more at discharge
Most abundant species: bay anchovy
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 48 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 23% for bay anchovy
Initial discharge survival range: 6% for bay anchovy
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / Intake survival
Confidence intervals (95%) were presented
No calculations of significance due to small sample size
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: none collected
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 3 hours of collection.
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: unknown, too narrow of temperature range sampled
Mechanical effects: New dual-speed pumps installed in Unit 2 in 1984, study was conducted to
determine whether extent of mechanical mortality differed from previous studies.
Quality control: SOPs, reanalysis of samples, double keypunch of all data
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-38
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Indian Point Sampling: Dates: June 8-June 30
Generating Station Samples collection frequency: unclear
Times of peak abundance: sampling not at peak densities for targeted species
Time: afternoon and evening hours
Hudson River, JN Y Number of replicates: varied, unknown number per day
Intake and discharge sampling: simultaneous with twice as many at discharge
1988 Studv Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: rear-draw sampling flumes, 1 at intake and 2 at discharge
Depth: unknown at intake, surface at bottom at discharge
EA Engineering, Intake iocation: on raft in front of Intake 35
Science, and Discharge location: downstream from flow of Units 2 and 3
Technology 1989 Water quality parameters measured: salinity, DO, pH
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: discharge 2.2-10.0 ft/sec
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Intake range: 20.3-23.8 °C
AT range: not provided
Biocide use: residual chlorine not monitored
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 13
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: 12,333
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: 10X more in discharge
Most abundant species: bay anchovy, striped bass, white perch
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 24 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period; discharge survival
estimates include data from direct release studies and combined surface and bottom
samples
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 0-8% for bay anchovy; 86-90% for striped bass
Initial discharge survival range: 0-2% for bay anchovy; 62-68% for striped bass
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: discharge survival / intake survival
Standard errors were presented
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: none survived in intake and discharge samples
Larval survival: decreased markedly within hours of collection
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: undetermined effect; too narrow range tested
Mechanical effects: study was conducted to determine the effect of the installation of dual speed
circulating water pumps in Unit 2 in 1984 and variable speed pumps in Unit 3 in 1985;
mechanical effects were determined to be main cause of mortality when discharge
temperatures are <32 °C
Quality control: SOPs, sampling stress evaluation, reanalysis of samples, double keypunch data
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-39
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Indian River Power Sampling: Dates: July 2,1975-December 13,1976
pianf Samples collection frequency: once or twice monthly
Times of peak abundance: samples not taken frequently enough to detect
Time: mostly at night
Indian River Estuary Number of replicates: varied
Intake and discharge sampling: not paired discharge samples not always collected
1975_ 1976 Studv Elapsed collection time: approximately 5 minutes or until sufficient # collected
Method: 0.5 m diameter plankton sled with 505 |im net rinsed in 10L of water of unspecified
origin
Ecological Analysts, Depm: unknown
1978b Intake location: from foot bridge over intake canal
Discharge location: in discharge canal under roadway bridge
Water quality parameters measured: unknown
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Intake range: -0.2-29.2
Discharge range: 5.4-39 °C
AT ranged from 5.2-9.0 °C
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 27
Total number of samples collected: 25 intake and 21 discharge
Total number of organisms collected: unknown
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: unknown
Most abundant species: bay anchovy, Atlantic croaker, spot, weakfish,
Atlantic menhaden and Atlantic silversides
Stunned larvae: not discussed
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: in holding containers in ambient water baths for 96 hours
Data: sorted based on discharge temperature
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control.
Initial intake survival range: not provided
Initial discharge survival range: not provided
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: not all were counted for most abundant species, a random
sample was used instead
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: were not presented.
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms: unknown
Egg survival: were alive in either the intake or discharge samples.
Larval survival: unclear trend
Raw data: in Appendix B not available to EPA
Temperature effects: all species had lower survival at discharge temps >20 °C. Only Spot
survived above 35 °C though linear regression
Mechanical effects: unknown, however dye studies performed at this facility and recirculation
of discharge water has been shown to occur. The extent to which organisms are entrained
repeatedly and the effect this has on the number of organisms that were shown to have died
through natural causes or from sampling is not known. Thus some intake mortality may be
due to the organism's previous passage through the facility.
Quality control: unknown
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-40
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Muskingum River Plant Sampling: No on site sampling conducted
-, . . _. ~,, Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Muskingum River, OH No samplmg conducted
Literature Review Survival Estimation:
Analyzed pressure regimes in circulating water system
Ecological Analysts Measured discharge temperature and AT at the facility
* ' Determined that pressure regimes were similar to facilities with entrainment survival studies
*-" a Determined that low survival occurs at AT >7.8 °C which occurs for a small portion of
entrainment season
Reviewed documentation of survival at other steam electric stations
Concluded that potential of survival at this facility was intermediate to high
Peer review: literature review prepared for facility
A7-41
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Northport Generating Sampling: Dates: April 10-22 and July 10-23
Station Samples collection frequency: 5 nights per week
Times of peak abundance: attempted to coincide with peak abundance
Time: 1700-0100 hours
Long Island Sound, NY Number of replicates: unknown
Intake and discharge sampling: simultaneous
1980 Studv Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: floating rear-draw sampling flume with 505 |im mesh screens with ambient water
injection system
Ecological Analysts, Depth: intake: 2-8 m below surface; discharge: 1.5m
1981c Intake location: immediately in front of Unit 2 or 3 trash racks
Discharge location: immediately in front of Unit 2 or 3 seal well
Water quality parameters measured: DO, pH, conductivity
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Discharge range: 15.9-35 °C, average 19.9 in April and 33.6 in July
AT ranged from 8.6-15.0 °C
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 20
Total number of samples collected: 162
Total number of organisms collected: 884 in April and 76 in July
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: more at discharge
Most abundant species: American sand lance, winter flounder, northern pipefish
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated jars of filtered ambient water for 48 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 66% for American sand lance; 85% for winter flounder
28% for bay anchovy
Initial discharge survival range: 17% for American sand lance; 35% for winter flounder
0% for bay anchovy
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: discharge survival / intake survival
Stated that survival estimate based on 4 assumptions: that the survival at the discharge is the
product of the probabilities of surviving entrainment and sampling, that the survival at the
intake is the probability of surviving sampling, that at the discharge there is no interaction
between the two stresses, and each life stage consists of a homogenous population in which
all individuals have the same probability of surviving to the next life stage
Standard errors were presented
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: none collected
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 6 hours of collection.
American sand lance significantly larger in intake sample
Raw data: were provided to verify results
Temperature effects: not studied
Mechanical effects: not studied
Quality control: SOPs, color coded labels, sorting efficiency checks
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-42
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Oyster Creek Nuclear Sampling: Dates: February-August
Generating Station Samples collection frequency: unknown
Times of peak abundance: smaller samples collected during peak densities
Time: unknown
Barnegat Bay, NJ Number of replicates: unknown
Intake and discharge sampling: discharge collected 2 minutes after intake
1985 Studv Elapsed collection time: approximately 10 minutes
Method: barrel sampler with 2 nested cylindrical tanks with 331 mm mesh
Depth: unknown
JiA Engineering, Intake location: northernmost intake groin west of recirculation tunnel
Science, and Discharge location: easternmost condenser discharge point
Technology 1986 Water quality parameters measured: DO, salinity and pH in latent studies
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Discharge range: 13.5-39.3 °C
AT ranged from-0.2-12.1 °C
Biocide use: chlorine concentration was measured, but not detected
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 20
Total number of samples collected: 13 for bay anchovy eggs, 10 for bay anchovy larvae and
5 for winter flounder
Total number of organisms collected: 60,274
Number of organisms entrained per year: 619 million to 15.4 billion
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: no
Most abundant species: bay anchovy and winter flounder
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion; as well as damaged
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars in water baths for 96 hours
Data: grouped by 3 day long sampling events
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 38-91% for bay anchovy larvae
77-96% for winter flounder larvae
Initial discharge survival range: 0-71% for bay anchovy larvae
32-92% for winter flounder larvae
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / Intake survival
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: were not presented
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: no
Egg survival: based on translucency and hatching success
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 3 hours of collection
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: no bay anchovy larvae survived at discharge >35 °C
Mechanical effects: 18.8% of mortality at discharge temperatures 25.9-27.0 °C
Quality control: unknown
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-43
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Pittsburg Power Plant Sampling: Dates: April 28-July 10
Samples collection frequency: once per week
about 25o/0 of all sampies collected at night
Number of replicates: typically 3
1976 Study Intake and discharge sampling: paired at closest time and temperature
Elapsed collection time: 1-2 minutes
c. j IT- i Method: 505 micron mech conical nylon plankton net with 0.58m plastic collecting tubes on
Stevens and Fmlayson, , , , , , , , , „J, „, F fe
J ' cod end; towed net on boat at 0.6 ft/sec
1978 Depth: mid-depth
Intake location: in river near intake
Discharge location: in river near discharge
Water quality parameters measured: none
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Intake temperature: 18-30 °C
Discharge temperature 27-37 °C
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 7
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: 462 (585 at north shore control)
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: enumerated in one replicate tow higher proportion of unidentifiable
fragments in intake
43% in intake; 19% in discharge
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: more at intake
Most abundant species: striped bass
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: not studied
Data: was summarized by mean larval length
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control additional controls in
center of river and north shore control site at north shore away from intake had lower
mortality rates
Initial intake survival range: 49-93% for striped bass
Initial discharge survival range: 8-87% for striped bass
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: paired discharge survival divided by paired intake survival
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: were not presented
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: not studied
Larval survival: increased survival with greater larval length
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: mortality increased with increase in discharge temperature higher mortality
with discharge temp. >31 and AT >7 °C
linear regression showed that half died at temps >33.3 °C
0% survival at temperatures of 38 °C
Mechanical effects: stated not as much of an effects as temperature; recirculated water may be
cause of some intake mortality
Quality control: not discussed
Peer review: study conducted by California Fish and Game with funds provided by facility
A7-44
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Port Jefferson Sampling: Dates: April 21 -26
Samples collection frequency: 4 times in one week
* * , .
Times of peak abundance: unclear if sampling coincided with peak densities
Time: 1800-0200 hours
Long Island Sound, NY Number of replicates: varied between 7-10 per sampling date.
Intake and discharge sampling: simultaneous collection, equal number at sites
1978 StudV Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: pump (2 different types) and larval table
Depth: intake: 2 m below mean low water mark
Ecological Analysts, discharge: 1 m below mean low water mark
1978d Intake location: in front of trash racks of intake of Unit 4
Discharge location: in common seal well structure for Units 3 and 4
Water quality parameters measured: none
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: 4
Temperature: Intake range: 7-9 °C
Discharge range: 10-18 °C
AT ranged from 2-11 °C
Biocide use: sampling coincided with time of no biocide use
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 5
Total number of samples collected: 94
Total number of organisms collected: 1,104
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: no, quite different
Most abundant species: winter flounder, sand lance, sculpin, American eel, fourbeard rockling
eggs
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars in water bath for 96 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 42-60% for winter flounder PYSL;
11-67% for sand lance PYSL
33-84% sculpin PYSL
25-100% American eel juveniles
11-26% fourbeard rockling eggs
Initial discharge survival range: 0-43% for winter flounder PYSL
12-40% for sand lance PYSL
88% for sculpin PYSL
94-96% for American eel juveniles
19-21% fourbeard rockling eggs
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / intake survival
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: were not presented.
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Significantly lower survival in discharge: winter flounder PYSL
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: classified by observation only, based on transparency
Larval survival: no information given on length or other life stages
Raw data: were provided to verify results
Temperature effects: no apparent relationship temperature and survival;
low numbers collected at a narrow range of discharge temperatures
Mechanical effects: assumed cause of all mortality
Quality control: color coded labeling, checks of sorted samples, and SOPs
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-45
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
PG&E Potrero Power Sampling: Dates: January
pianf Samples collection frequency: unknown
Times of peak abundance: unclear if sampling corresponded with peak densities
Time: unknown
San Francisco Bay, CA Number of replicates: unknown
Intake and discharge sampling: equal number but timing unknown
1979 StudV Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: 2 pumps and larval table with filtered ambient temperature water flow
Depth: mid-depth
Ecological Analysts, Intake location: directly in front of intake skimmer wall
1980b Discharge location: at point where discharge enters San Francisco Bay
Water quality parameters measured: none
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Discharge range: 18-19.5 °C
AT range not presented
Biocide use: not used during sampling events
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 11
Total number of samples collected: 25
Total number of organisms collected: 1,262
Number of organisms entrained per year: estimated for Units 1-3: 3 billion
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: approx. same
Most abundant species: Pacific herring
Stunned larvae: issue of stunned larvae not discussed in study
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars in water baths for 96 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 22% for Pacific herring
Initial discharge survival range: 16% for Pacific herring
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival/ Intake survival
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: were not presented.
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: no
Egg survival: not studied
Larval survival: Based on results of this study, an estimate of 75% entrainment survival was
used for all species and life stages entrained at this facility under all conditions
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: discharge temps <30 °C over 99.5% of time
Mechanical effects: most likely cause of mortality due to low temperatures
Quality control: unknown
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-46
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Quad Cities Nuclear Sampling: Dates: June 19-28
Station Samples collection frequency: varied
Times of peak abundance: unknown
Time: afternoon, evening or nighttime hours
Mississippi River, IL Number of replicates: varied
Intake and discharge sampling: unknown if paired
1978 Studv Elapsed collection time: did not exceed 60 seconds
Method: from boat, with 0.75 m conical plankton net with 526 |im mesh and an unscreened 5 L
bucket attached
rlazleton Depth: mid-depth at intake, near surface at discharge
Environmental Science, Intake location: intake forebay
1978 Discharge location: in discharge canal common to all units; held at discharge temp for 8.5
minutes to simulate passage through canal then cooled to ambient temp, plus 3.5 °C before
sorting
Water quality parameters measured: DO
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: exceed 1 ft/sec
Operating Conditions During Sampling: completely open cycle mode
Number of units in operation: power output 41-99%, Unit 1 offline on June 22
Number of pumps in operation: all 3 regardless of power load
Temperature: Intake range: 21.5-26.5 °C
Discharge range: 28.0-39.0 °C
AT ranged from 5.5-14.8 °C
Biocide use: not used during sampling
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 5
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: 2,587
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: more at discharge
Most abundant species: freshwater drum and minnows
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: assumed dead from natural mortality prior to collection and
omitted from further analysis; 27% of all sampled
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 24 hours on June 22-23, 26-27
Data: combined by % power of station operation
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 0-80% for all species
0-100% for freshwater drum
48-100% for minnows
Initial discharge survival range: 0-84% for all species
0-71% for freshwater drum
2-75% for minnows
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival/Intake survival
(minus dead and opaque individuals)
When discharge survival was greater than intake survival, the study indicated that entrainment
survival could not be calculated, rather than assume 100% entrainment survival
Confidence intervals/standard deviations: were not presented.
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Significantly lower survival in discharge: throughout study
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: not presented
Larval survival: decreased with increasing power output and discharge temperature
3% survival for all species when the facility operated near full capacity
(96-99%) and discharge temperatures exceeded 37.9 °C
Raw data: were provided to verify results, however replicate sample data not presented
Temperature effects: lower survival with higher discharge temperatures >30 °C
Mechanical effects: suggest mechanical effects cause 20-25% of mortality
Quality control: not discussed
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
,47-47
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Quad Cities Nuclear Sampling: Dates: April 25-June 27
Station ^u^ samPlm8 canceled as 100% mortality was suspected
Samples collection frequency: weekly
Times of peak abundance: unknown
Mississippi River, IL Time: unknown
Number of replicates: unknown
1984 Study Intake and discharge sampling: unknown if paired
Elapsed collection time: unknown
Method: from boat, with 0.75 m conical plankton net with 526 |im mesh and an unscreened 5 L
Lawler, Matusky & bucket attached
Skelly Engineers, 1985 Depth: 1.5 m for intake, surface for discharge
Intake location: intake forebay
Discharge location: in discharge canal; held at collection temperature for 8.5 min. then cooled to
3.5 °C above ambient temperature with an ice bath, in all held for over 20 minutes before
sorting
Water quality parameters measured: none
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: samples collected at <0.8 ft/sec
Operating Conditions During Sampling: operating at 40.2 to 50.7% capacity
Number of units in operation: Unit 1 offline for refueling;
both units offline on May 9
Number of pumps in operation: all 3 on all dates except on May 9
Temperature: Intake range: 11-24.4 °C
Discharge range: 12-37 °C
AT ranged from 9.5 to 14.5 °C; 1 °C on May 9 when offline
Biocide use: not used during sampling
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 8
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: 3,967
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: approx. same total
Most abundant species: freshwater drum, carp and buffalo
Stunned larvae: not discussed
Dead and opaque organisms: omitted from analysis; assumed dead before collection, 2,979
opaque individuals were collected
(75% of total, 87% of all discharge sample, range: 0 to 99% in samples)
None were found to be dead and opaque in discharge on May 9 when offline and
ATwasl°C.
Latent survival: not discussed
Data: combined by species and sampling date
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: results not presented, only number alive
10-81% were dead and opaque
Initial discharge survival range: results not presented, only number alive
24-99% were dead and opaque
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / Intake survival
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: were not presented.
Significant differences were not tested due to low numbers collected
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: not studied
Larval survival: too little information to make any assumption of survival
Raw data: were not provided to verify results; totals collected per species not presented; actual
numbers of dead and opaque not provided
Temperature effects: no sampling in July when discharge temps >37 °C
Mechanical effects: not discussed
Quality control: 100% reanalysis quality control
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-48
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Roseton Generating Sampling: Dates: May 29th-November 18*
Station Collection frequency: varied from 4 times per week to once every 2 weeks.
Times of peak abundance: greater frequency of collection
Time: varied but generally occurred between dusk and dawn
Hudson River, JN Y Number of replicates: varied between 3 and 14 for each date
Intake and discharge sampling: paired but timing not standardized
1975 Studv Elapsed collection time: not noted
Method: pump/larval table
Depth: mid-depth at both the intake and discharge
Ecological Analysts, Intake location: in front of the trash rack
1976c Discharge location: from the seal well before the end of the discharge pipe
Water quality parameters measured: none mentioned
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: not given
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: varied between 1 and 2
Number of pumps in operation: varied between 2 and 3
Temperature: AT ranged from 3 to 13 °C, intake and discharge T not given
Biocide use: not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 41
Number of samples: 672
Number of organisms collected: 3,667
Number of organisms entrained per year: not discussed
Fragmented organisms collected: not discussed
Equal number collected from intake and discharge: differed by as much as 3.2X
Most abundant species: striped bass, white perch, alewife and blueback herring
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not mentioned
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 96 hours.
Data: summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in intake sample; no other control
Initial intake survival range: 57 to 80% for striped bass
0 to 71% for white perch
58 to 65% for herrings
Initial discharge survival range: 62% for striped bass
29% for white perch
26% for herrings
Calculation of entrainment survival: Discharge Survival/Intake Survival
Study noted that survival cannot be calculated with insufficient data or when intake survival is
very low
Confidence intervals/ standard deviations: not presented
Significant differences: tested between the intake and discharge survival
Significantly lower survival in discharge: striped bass YSL and PYSL
white perch PYSL
herring PYSL and juveniles
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: none alive in either the intake or discharge samples
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 3 hours of collection
Size effects: survival by larval length was not studied
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: not provided
Mechanical effects: not provided
Quality control: double check after initial sorting; monitoring of data entry
Peer review: not mentioned; study was conducted for the facility
A7-49
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Roseton Generating Sampling: Dates: June 14th-July 30th
Station Samples collection frequency: 4 nights per week
Times of peak abundance: coincided with Morons spp. spawning season
Time: 1700 to 0300 EST
Hudson River, JN Y Number of replicates: actual numbers not give, an average of 12 per night stated
Intake and discharge sampling: pairing unknown
1976 StudV Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: pump/ larval table combination
Depth: mid-depth for both intake and discharge
Ecological Analysts, Intake location: 1 m in front of trash rack
1978e Discharge location: in seal well near end of discharge pipe
Water quality parameters measured: no
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: varied between 0 and 2
Number of pumps in operation: not given
Temperature: Intake temperature range: 18.7-27.5 °C
Discharge temperature ranged 24-37 °C
AT ranged from 1-10 °C
Biocide use: not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 27
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: 3,491
Number of organisms entrained per year: not given
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake / discharge: no, up to 5.7X more
Most abundant species: herrings, white perch and striped bass
Stunned larvae: were included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not mentioned
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 96 hours
Data: combined by discharge temperature range: 34-30.5 and 30.6 to 37 °C
Controls: Survival in the intake samples; no other control.
Initial intake survival range: 74-100% for striped bass
53-94% for white perch
49-68% for herrings
Initial discharge survival range: 14-80% for striped bass
6-56% for white perch
5-29% for herrings
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge Survival/ Intake Survival
Data for many taxa or life stages collected were insufficient for analysis
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: were not presented
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Significantly lower survival in discharge: striped bass PYSL
white perch PYSL and juveniles
herring PYSL and juveniles
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: data not presented
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 3 hours of collection.
Size effects: survival by larval length was not studied
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: significant decrease in survival at discharge temp >30 °C
Mechanical effects: unknown
Quality control: double check after initial sorting; monitoring of data entry
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
.47-50
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Roseton Generating Sampling: Dates: March 3-17 and May 31st-July 15*
Station Samples collection frequency: unknown; usually 4 nights per week was stated
Times of peak abundance: coincided with spawning of targeted species
Time: 1700 to 0300 hours EST
Hudson River, JNY Number of replicates: unknown; an average of 8 to 10 per night was stated
Intake and discharge sampling: unknown if samples were collected in pairs
1977 Studv Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: pump/larval table combination
ambient water flow in table to reduce thermal exposure during sorting
Ecological Analysts, Depm: mid-depth
1978f Intake location: in front of trash racks
Discharge location: from seal well 244 m from end of discharge pipe
Water quality parameters measured: no
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: varied between 2 and 4
Temperature: Intake temperature: 0.5-5.5 °C (March); 11-27 °C (June/July)
Discharge temperature: 7-17 °C (March); 24-36 °C (June/July)
AT range: unknown
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: unknown
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: 6,973
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: if >50% present, organism was counted
Equal number collected at intake and discharge: up to 2.3X more in discharge
Most abundant species: atlantic tomcod, herrings, striped bass, white perch
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not mentioned
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 96 hours
Data: combined by discharge temperature range, <29.9, 30.0-32.9, >33 °C
Controls: Survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 39% for Atlantic tomcod
0 to 50% for striped bass
0 to 33% for white perch
0 to 59% for herrings
Initial discharge survival range: 16% for Atlantic tomcod
0 to 83% for striped bass
0 to 50% for white perch
0 to 14% for herrings
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge Survival / Intake Survival
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: were not presented.
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Significantly lower survival in discharge: Atlantic tomcod YSL
striped bass PYSL
white perch PYSL
herring PYSL and juveniles
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
number of some taxa and life stage were too low to estimate survival reliably
Egg survival: data not presented
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 3 hours of collection.
increased with larval length
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: survival decreased at temperatures above 30 °C
very low survival at temperatures >33 °C (0 to 3%)
Mechanical effects: survival may increase with number of pumps operating
Quality control: color coded labels, immediate checks of sorted sample, SOP's
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-51
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Roseton Generating Sampling: Dates: March 13-23 and June 6-July 13
Station Samples collection frequency: 3-4 nights per week
Times of peak abundance: coincided with spawning of targeted species
Time: 1700 to 0300 EDT
Hudson River, NY Number of replicates: 4 to 10 per night
Intake and discharge sampling: unknown if paired samples
1978 StudV Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: pump/ larval table combination with fine mesh
ambient water flow to table to minimize thermal exposure when sorting
Ecological Analysts, Depth: mid-depth
1980c Intake location: in front of trash rack
Discharge location: in seal well 244 m from end of discharge pipe
Water quality parameters measured: none
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: varied between 1 and 2
Number of pumps in operation: varied between 2 and 3
Temperature: Intake temperature: 0.2-5.5 °C (March), 19.8-24.0 °C (June/July)
Discharge temperature: 10-19 °C (March), 24-37 °C (June/July)
AT range was not given
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 30
Total number of samples collected: 256
Total number of organisms collected: 5,308
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: counted if >50% of organism was present
22% of Atlantic tomcod could not be identified to life stage due to damage
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: varied
Most abundant species: herrings, white perch, striped bass, Atlantic tomcod
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not mentioned
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 96 hours
Data: combined by discharge temperature range <29.9, 30.0-32.9, >33 °C
also combined by larval length
Controls: Survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 75-84% for Atlantic tomcod
8-100% for striped bass
0-93% for white perch
0-67% for herrings
Initial discharge survival range: 23-33% for Atlantic tomcod
0-50% for striped bass
0-100% for white perch
0-18% for herrings
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival/ Intake survival
Confidence intervals/standard deviations: were not presented
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Significantly lower survival in discharge: Atlantic tomcod YSL and PYSL
striped bass PYSL
white perch PYSL
herring PYSL
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
samples sizes of some taxa and life stages were too small to analyze survival
Egg survival: data not presented
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 3-6 hours of collection
increased with larval length
Raw data: consolidated data by temp, and length was provided; not by sample
Temperature effects: significant decrease in survival at temperatures >24 °C
very little survival at temperatures >30 °C
Mechanical effects: lower tomcod survival in discharge w/o thermal effects
Quality control: color coded labels, checks of sorted samples, SOP's
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
.47-52
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Roseton Generating Sampling: Dates: May 26-July 31
Station Samples collection frequency: usually 4 nights per week
Times of peak abundance: coincided spawning of striped bass and white perch
Time: 1600 to 0200 EDT
Hudson River, JN Y Number of replicates: varied between 1 and 10 per sampling date
Intake and discharge sampling: unknown if samples were paired
1980 Studv Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: pump/larval table or plankton sampling flume
ambient water injection system to minimize thermal exposure
Ecological Analysts, Depm: unknown
1983 Intake location: from the No. IB circulating water pump forebay
Discharge location: from discharge seal well or submerged diffuser port
Water quality parameters measured: none
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: varied between 1 and 2
Number of pumps in operation: varied between 3 and 4
Temperature: Intake temperature: 17.0-29.0 °C
Discharge temperature: 21.5-34.5 °C
AT range not given
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 42
Total number of samples collected: 1431
Total number of organisms collected: 4,965
Number of organisms entrained per year: not given
Fragmented organisms: counted if >50% of organism was present
7% of all organisms would not be identified to a life stage due to damage
Equal no. of organisms collected at intake/ discharge: more samples at discharge
Most abundant species: herrings, striped bass, white perch
Stunned larvae: were included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not mentioned
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 48 hours.
Data: combined by larval length
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 33-100% for striped bass
0-75% for white perch
30-53% for herrings
Initial discharge survival range: 23-100% for striped bass
0-88% for white perch
0-31 % for herrings
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival/Intake survival
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: were not presented.
Significant differences were tested for latent survival only
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: not studied
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 3-6 hours of collection
survival increased with larval length
survival lowest for YSL and highest for juveniles
survival using flume was very low
Raw data: only consolidated data were presented, not by sample
Temperature effects: data not given
Mechanical effects: number of pumps may not affect survival
Quality control: color coded labels, SOPs
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-53
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Salem Generating Sampling: Dates: 1977-1982
Station Samples collection frequency: varied, 1 to 4 times per month
Times of peak abundance: highest frequency in June and July
Time: unknown
Delaware Bay, N J Number of replicates: varied from 0 to 13 per sampling event
Intake and discharge sampling: usually paired with lag time
1984 Demonstration Elapsed collection time: 10 minutes
<, , Method: larval table(1977-1980) or low-velocity flume (1981-1982)
Stuay Depth: mid-depth for intake
Intake location: at intake bay 11A or 12B, inboard of traveling screen
PSE&G, 1984 Discharge location: discharge standpipe 12 or 22
Water quality parameters measured: unknown
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Intake temperature: unknown
Discharge temperature: unknown
AT range: unknown
Lab simulation studies used to test thermal mortality
Biocide use: three 30 minute periods of chlorination each day
estimated biocide use reduces survival by 6.25%
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 0 to 12 per year, 38 in all years combined
Total number of samples collected: varied per year, 640 in all years combined
Total number of organisms collected: 5,173 larvae and juvenile fish of 6 taxa
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal no. of organisms collected at intake/ discharge: unknown
Most abundant species: spot and alewife
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not mentioned
Latent survival: tests varied with year, 12 to 96 hours in jars or aquaria
Data: combined data from all years, collected under all conditions
Controls: some fish were introduced into the larval table or low velocity flume directly; unclear
if organisms passed through facility
Initial intake survival range: 90.9% for spot
12.5% for herrings
Initial discharge survival range: 74.1% for spot
7.1% for herrings
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival/Intake survival
Estimated survival rates from onsite and simulation studies and compared with results in the
literature from other waterbodies to select "the most realistic estimates"
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: not presented
Significant differences: not tested
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: unknown
Egg survival: none collected
Larval survival: not separated from juvenile survival
Raw data: was not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: unknown
Mechanical effects: tested gear efficiency and related mortality only
Quality control: not mentioned
Peer review: not mentioned, study conducted for the facility
.47-54
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A8
Chapter A8: Discounting Benefits
Introduction
Chapter Contents
Discounting refers to the economic conversion of
future benefits and costs to their present values,
A8-1 Timing of Benefits A8-1
accounting for the fact that individuals tend to value Ag-2 Discounting and Annualization A8-2
future outcomes less than comparable near-term
outcomes. Annualization refers to the conversion of
a series of annual costs or benefits of differing amounts to an equivalent annual series of constant costs or
benefits. Discounting and annualization are important because these techniques allow the comparison of benefits
and costs that occur in different time periods.
For the benefits analysis of the regulatory analysis options for the final section 316(b) regulation for Phase III
facilities, EPA's discounting and annualization methodology included three steps. First, EPA developed a time
profile of benefits to show when benefits occur. Second, the Agency calculated the total discounted value of the
benefits as of the year 2007. Finally, EPA annualized the benefits of the regulatory analysis options over a thirty-
year time span. The following sections explain these steps in detail.
A8-1 Timing of Benefits
In order to calculate the annualized value of the welfare gain from the regulatory analysis options considered for
the final section 316(b) regulation for Phase III facilities, EPA developed a time profile of total benefits from all
Phase III facilities that reflects when benefits from each facility will be realized. EPA first calculated the
undiscounted commercial and recreational welfare gain from the expected annual regional reductions in
impingement and entrainment (I&E) under each analysis option, based on the assumptions that all facilities in
each region have achieved compliance with each respective option and that benefits are realized immediately
following compliance. Then, since there are regulatory and biological time lags between the potential
promulgation of each respective analysis option and the realization of benefits, EPA created a time profile of
benefits that takes into account the fact that benefits do not begin immediately. Since this time profile requires
information about facility-specific differences in magnitude and timing of benefits, but benefits were estimated
only on a regional basis, EPA approximated benefits from each facility by multiplying total undiscounted regional
benefits by the percentage of total regional flow that is attributable to each facility.
Regulatory-related time lags occur because, although the regulatory analysis options take effect at the beginning
of 2007, facilities would not need to come into compliance with each respective option until their current NPDES
permits expire..1 EPA used facility-specific permitting information to estimate the lag between the potential
promulgation of the regulatory analysis options and the compliance year for each sample facility. The terms of
each facility's permit differ, but permits for all Phase III facilities are expected to expire between 2010 and 2014.
Thus, EPA estimates that it would take from three to seven years after promulgation of each respective analysis
option for Phase III facilities to install technologies to reduce I&E.
The biological time lags that affect the timing of benefits occur because most fish that would be spared from I&E
would be in larval or juvenile stages. Since these fish may require several years to grow and mature before
commercial and recreational anglers can harvest them, there would be a lag between installation of technologies
1 The final regulation for Phase III facilities is scheduled to be promulgated in June of 2006. However, to simplify
the discounting and annualization calculations for the benefit cost analysis of the regulatory analysis options, EPA
assumed that the regulation will take effect on January 1, 2007.
A8-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A8
to reduce I&E and realization of commercial and recreational angling benefits. For example, a larval fish spared
from entrainment (in effect, at age zero) may be caught by a recreational angler at age three, meaning that a three-
year time lag arises between the installation of technologies to reduce I&E and the realization of the estimated
recreational benefit. Likewise, if a one-year-old fish is spared from impingement and is then harvested by a
commercial fisherman at age two, there is a one year lag between the installation of technologies to reduce I&E
and the subsequent commercial fishery benefit. In general, fish that tend to be harvested at young ages will have
relatively short time lags between implementation of technologies to reduce I&E and the subsequent timing of
changes in catch. In contrast, long-lived fish that tend to be caught at relatively older ages would tend to have
longer time lags (and, hence, the effects of discounting would be larger, resulting in lower present values).
In order to model the biological lags between installation of technologies to reduce I&E and realization of
commercial and recreational benefits, EPA collected species-specific information on ages offish at harvest to
estimate the average time required for a fish spared from I&E to reach a harvestable age. The estimated time lags
range from 0.5 years to six years, depending on the life history of each fish species affected. EPA used this
information, along with information about the estimated age and species composition of I&E losses in each study
region, to develop a benefits recognition schedule for facilities in each region.
Following achievement of compliance, benefits from facilities in most regions are assumed to increase over a
seven year period to a long-term, steady state average, equal to the approximated per-facility benefit value
discussed above, according to a numerical profile of <0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.8, 0.9, 0.95, 1.0>. This profile indicates the
fraction of the steady state benefit value (i.e., the percentage of commercial and recreational fish spared from I&E
that reach a harvestable age) that is realized in each of the first seven years following the achievement of
compliance at a facility. After seven years, this fraction remains 1.0 for 23 additional years. After these combined
30 years the facility is assumed to cease compliance, which is consistent with the time period over which costs are
evaluated.
In the same way that the benefits profile builds up over time following compliance, the benefits profile declines at
the end of the compliance period. Specifically, in the seven years following the end of compliance, the fraction of
the steady state benefit value achieved follows the profile of <1.0, 0.9, 0.8, 0.2, 0.1, 0.05, 0.0>. Therefore, the
analysis of benefits encompasses a 37-year facility compliance period starting with the first year of compliance.
There are 35 years when benefits do not equal zero for a facility; 25 years when benefits are 100%; 10 years when
benefits are a percentage of the total. These profile values are approximations based on a review of the age-
specific fishing mortality rates that were used in the I&E analysis and best professional judgment.
For regions with a relatively high contribution of impingement to total I&E (Inland, Great Lakes, and the Gulf of
Mexico regions), EPA used an adjusted benefits profile of <0.1, 0.2, 0.8, 0.9, 0.95, 1.0>. This adjusted profile
reflects that impinged fish are usually larger and older than entrained fish and thus benefits will be realized sooner
in these regions. These profile values are approximations based on a review of the age-specific fishing mortality
rates that were used in the I&E analysis and best professional judgment.
A8-2 Discounting and Annualization
Using the time profile of benefits discussed above, EPA discounted the total benefits generated in each year of the
analysis to 2007 using the following formula:
Benefits,
(1 + r)'
Present value = I '? (Equation 1)
A8-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A8
where:
Benefits.t. = benefits in year t
r = discount rate (3% and 7%)
t = year in which benefits are incurred (2007 to 2043)
After calculating the present value (PV) of these benefits streams, EPA calculated their constant annual equivalent
value (annualized value) using the annualization formula presented below, again using two discount rates, 3% and
7%..2. Although the analysis period extends from 2007 through 2048, a compliance period of 42 years for all
facilities, EPA annualized benefits over 30 years, since 30 years is the assumed period of compliance. This same
annualization concept and period of annualization were also followed in the analysis of costs, although for costs
the time horizon of analysis for calculating the present value is shorter than for benefits. Using a 30-year
annualization period for both benefits and social costs allows comparison of constant annual equivalent values of
benefits and costs that have been calculated on a mathematically consistent basis. The annualization formula is as
follows:
* (\ + r)(n"
Annualized Benefit = PV of Benefit * I (Equation 2)
(l + r)n - ' V 4 '
where:
r = discount rate (3% and
n = annualization period, 30 years for the benefits analysis
Table A8-1 presents an illustrative summary of the time profile of undiscounted benefits for one of the regulatory
analysis options, for each region and for the entire U.S. The table also presents the total discounted value and
annualized value that are equivalent to this stream of undiscounted benefits.
Table A8-1: Time Profile of Mean Total Use Benefits for the "50
(thousands 2004$)ab
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
California
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3
$7
$27
$30
$32
$33
North
Atlantic
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1
$3
$11
$13
$19
Mid-
Atlantic
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2
$3
$22
$36
$96
$125
Gulf of
Mexico
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$165
$330
$1,320
$1,484
$1,567
MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Great Lakes
$0
$0
$0
$3
$30
$75
$249
$315
$460
$495
Inland
$0
$0
$0
$6
$29
$84
$195
$235
$291
$313
National
Total
$0
$0
$0
$9
$64
$335
$825
$1,946
$2,377
$2,552
2. The 3% rate represents a reasonable estimate of the social rate of time preference. The 7% rate represents an
alternative discount rate, recommended by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), that reflects the estimated
opportunity cost of capital.
A8-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A8
Table A8-1: Time Profile of Mean Total Use Benefits for the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
(thousands 2004$)ab
Year
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
California
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$30
$27
$7
$3
$2
$0
$0
$0
North
Atlantic
$20
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$20
$18
$10
$8
$2
$1
$0.e
Mid-
Atlantic
$133
$139
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$139
$138
$119
$105
$45
$16
$8
$2
Gulf of
Mexico
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,484
$1,320
$330
$165
$82
$0
$0
Great Lakes
$507
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$515
$488
$444
$269
$203
$58
$23
$11
$0
Inland
$318
$322
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$316
$294
$238
$127
$87
$31
$10
$4
$0e
National
Total
$2,662
$2,683
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,676
$2,622
$2,351
$1,860
$739
$309
$133
$24
$2
Undiscounted
Total Present Value0
Annualized Valued
$1,004
$33
$629
$21
$4,228
$141
$49,483
$1,649
$15,543
$518
$9,676
$323
$80,563
$2,685
Evaluated at 3% Discount Rate
Total Present Value0
Annualized Valued
$565
$29
$336
$17
$2,244
$115
$27,050
$1,380
$8,543
$436
$5,389
$275
$44,128
$2,251
A8-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A8
Table A8-1: Time Profile of Mean Total Use Benefits for the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
(thousands 2004$)
a,b
North Mid- Gulf of National
Year California Atlantic Atlantic Mexico Great Lakes Inland Total
Evaluated at 7% Discount Rate
Total Present Value." $296 $165 $1,090 $13,631 $4,341 $2,786 $22,308
Annualized Valued $24 $13 $88 $1,098 $350 $224 $1,798
a. The estimate of the total use value of I&E reductions includes recreational and commercial fishing benefits. EPA
estimated non-use benefits qualitatively.
b Note that all monetary values in this table are expressed in thousands 2004$, since EPA did not adjust the values for
inflation.
°. The total present value is equal to the sum of the values of the benefits realized in all years of the analysis,
discounted to 2007.
d The annualized value represents the total present value of the benefits of the regulation, distributed over a thirty year
period.
e Positive non-zero value less than $500.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
A8-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A9
Chapter A9: Threatened & Endangered
Species Analysis Methods
Chapter Contents
A9-1
A9-2
A9-3
.A9-1
.A9-2
.A9-2
.A9-3
..A9-4
A9-4
Introduction
Threatened and endangered (T&E) and other special
status species.1, can be adversely affected in several
ways by cooling water intake structures (CWIS).
T&E species can suffer direct harm from
impingement and entrainment (I&E), they can suffer
indirect impacts if I&E at CWIS adversely affects
another species upon which the T&E species relies
(e.g., as a food source), or they can suffer impacts if
the CWIS disrupts their critical habitat. The loss of
individuals of listed species from CWIS is
particularly important because, by definition, these
species are already rare and at risk of irreversible
decline because of other stressors.
This chapter provides information relevant to an
analysis of listed species in the context of the section
316(b) regulation; defines species considered as
threatened, endangered, or of special concern; gives
a brief overview of the potential for I&E-related
adverse impacts on T&E species; and describes
methods available for considering the economic
value of such impacts.
EPA was unable to evaluate the presence of T&E
species near potentially regulated Phase III facilities
because it was able to obtain only 20 Phase III
studies. The lack of information on T&E species at
Phase III facilities may be a function of this limited
number of impingement and entrainment studies.
However, a number of Phase II facilities have documented impingement and entrainment of T&E species.
Chapters B-H provide information on the federally listed T&E species present in each region of EPA's Phase III
analysis.
Listed Species Background
A9-1.1 Federally Listed Species
Definitions
A9-1.2 Main Factors in Listing of
Aquatic Species
A9-1.3 "Incidental Take" Permits
Benefit Categories Applicable for Impacts
on T&E Species
Methods Available for Estimating the
Economic Value Associated with I&E of
T&E Species
A9-3.1 Estimating I&E Impacts on T&E
Species
A9-3.2 Economic Valuation Methods
Issues in Estimating and Valuing
Environmental Impacts from I&E on
T&E Species
A9-4.1 Issues in Estimating the Size of
the Population of Special Status
Species
A9-4.2 Issues Associated with
Estimating I&E Contribution to
the Cumulative Impact from
All Stressors
A9-4.3 Issues Associated with
Implementing an Economic
Valuation Approach
.A9-5
.A9-5
.A9-5
A9-12
A9-12
A9-12
A9-12
A9-1 Listed Species Background
The federal government and individual states develop and maintain lists of species that are considered
endangered, threatened, or of special concern. The federal and state lists are not identical: a state does not list a
1 To simplify the discussion, in this chapter EPA uses the terms "T&E species" and "special status species"
interchangeably to mean all species that are specifically listed as threatened or endangered, plus any other species that
has been given a special status designation at the state or federal level.
A9-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9
species that is on the federal list if it is extirpated in the state. States may also list a species that is not on the
federal list if the species is considered threatened or endangered at the state, but not federal, level.
The federal trustees for T&E species are the Department of the Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(U.S. FWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries. Both departments are also
referred to herein as the Services. The U.S. FWS is responsible for migratory birds and terrestrial and freshwater
species (including plants), whereas NOAA Fisheries deals with marine species and anadromous fish (USFWS,
1996b). At the state level, the departments, agencies, or commissions with jurisdiction over T&E species include
Fish and Game; Natural Resources; Fish and Wildlife Conservation; Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Game and Parks;
Environmental Conservation; Conservation and Natural Resources; Parks and Wildlife; the states' Natural
Heritage Programs, and several others.
In the remainder of this chapter, and in the regional sections of this document, EPA focuses on federally listed
T&E species based on information in the U.S. FWS' Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS)
database (USFWS, 2006a), available at ..http ://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife .html.
Information on both federal and state listed species is available online in the Nature Serve database (Nature Serve,
2006) at ..http://www.natureserve.org/explorerA. For additional information on state listed species, it is best to
contact the T&E coordinator in the particular state of interest.
A9-1.1 Federally Listed Species Definitions
a. Threatened and endangered species
A species is federally listed as "endangered" when it is likely to become extinct within the foreseeable future
throughout all or part of its range if no immediate action is taken to protect it. A species is listed as "threatened" if
it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or most of its range if no action is
taken to protect it. Species are selected for listing based on petitions, surveys by the Services or other agencies,
and other substantiated reports or field studies. The 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA) outlines detailed
procedures used by the Services to list a species, including listing criteria, public comment periods, hearings,
notifications, time limits for final action, and other related issues (USFWS, 1996b).
A species is considered to be federally threatened or endangered if one or more of the following listing criteria
apply (USFWS, 1996b):
>• the species' habitat or range is currently undergoing or is jeopardized by destruction, modification, or
curtailment;
>• the species is overused for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
>• the species' existence is vulnerable because of predation or disease;
>• current regulatory mechanisms do not provide adequate protection; or
>• the continued existence of a species is affected by other natural or man-made factors.
b. Species of concern
States and the federal government have also included species of "special concern" on their lists. These species
have been selected because they are (1) rare or endemic, (2) in the process of being listed, (3) considered for
listing in the future, (4) found in isolated and fragmented habitats, or (5) considered a unique or irreplaceable state
resource.
A9-1.2 Main Factors in Listing of Aquatic Species
Numerous physical and biological stressors have resulted in the listing of aquatic species. The major factors
include habitat destruction or modification, displacement of populations by exotic species, dam building and
impoundments, increased siltation and turbidity in the water column, sedimentation, various point and non-point
sources of pollution, poaching, and accidental catching. Some stresses, such as increased contaminant loads or
A9-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9
turbidity, can be alleviated by water quality programs such as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) or the current EPA efforts to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Other factors,
such as dam building or habitat modifications for flood control purposes, are relatively permanent and therefore
more difficult to mitigate. In addition to these major factors, negative effects of CWIS on some listed species have
been documented.
A9-1.3 "Incidental Take" Permits
Congress amended the ESA in 1982 and established a legal mechanism authorizing the Services to issue permits
to non-federal entities — including individuals, private businesses, corporations, local governments, state
governments, and Tribal governments — who engage in the "incidental take" of federally-protected wildlife
species (plants are not explicitly covered by this program). Incidental take is defined as take that is "incidental to,
and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity under local, State or Federal law."
Examples of lawful activities that may result in the incidental take of T&E species include developing private or
state-owned land containing habitats used by federally-protected species, or the withdrawal of cooling water that
may impinge or entrain federally-protected aquatic species present in surface waters.
An integral part of the incidental take permit process is development of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). An
HCP provides a counterbalance to an incidental take by proposing measures to minimize or mitigate the impact
and ensuring the long-term commitment of the non-federal entity to species conservation. HCPs often include
conservation measures that benefit not only the target T&E species, but also proposed and candidate species, and
other rare and sensitive species that are present within the plan area (USFWS and NMFS, 2000). The ESA
stipulates the major points that must be addressed in an HCP, including the following (USFWS and NMFS,
2000):
>• defining the potential impacts associated with the proposed taking of a federally-listed species;
>• describing the measures that the applicant will take to monitor, minimize, and mitigate these impacts,
including funding sources2.;
>• analyzing alternative actions that could be taken by the applicant and reasons why those actions cannot be
adopted; and
>• describing additional measures that the Services may require as necessary or appropriate.
HCP permits can be issued by the Services' regional directors if:
>• the taking will be incidental to an otherwise lawful activity;
>• any impacts will be minimized or fully mitigated;
>• the permittee provides adequate funding to fully implement the permit;
>• the incidental taking will not reduce the chances of survival or recovery of the T&E species; and
>• any other required measures are met.
The Services have published a detailed description of the incidental take permit process and the habitat
conservation planning process (USFWS and NMFS, 2000). The federal incidental take permit program has only
limited application within the context of the section 316(b) regulation because many T&E species (fish in
particular) are listed mainly by states, not by the Services, and hence fall outside of the jurisdiction of this
program.
Mitigation can include preserving critical habitats, restoring degraded former habitat, creating new habitats,
modifying land use practices to protect habitats, and establishing buffer areas around existing habitats.
A9-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9
A9-2 Benefit Categories Applicable for Impacts on T&E Species
Estimating the economic benefits of helping to preserve T&E and other special status species, such as by reducing
I&E impacts, is difficult due to a lack of knowledge of the ecological role of different T&E species and a relative
paucity of economic studies focusing on the benefits of T&E preservation. Most of the wildlife economic
literature focuses on recreational use benefits that may be irrelevant for valuation of T&E species because T&E
species (e.g., the delta smelt in California) are not often targeted by recreational or commercial fishers. The
numbers of special status species that are recreationally or commercially fished (e.g., shortnose sturgeon in the
Delaware Estuary) have been so depleted that any use estimates associated with angling participation or landings
data for recent years (or decades) would not be indicative of the species' potential value for direct use if and when
the population recovers. Nevertheless, there are some T&E species for which consumptive use-related benefits
could be significant once the numbers of individuals are restored to levels that enable resumption of relevant uses.
Based on their potential uses, T&E species can be divided into three broad categories:
>• T&E species with high potential for consumptive uses. The components of total value of such species are
likely to include consumptive, non-consumptive, and indirect use values, as well as existence and option
values. Pacific salmon, a highly prized game species, is a good example of such species. In addition to
having a high consumptive use value, this species is likely to have a high non-consumptive use value as
well, because people who never go fishing may still watch salmon runs. The use value may actually
dominate the total economic value of enhancing a T&E fish population for species like salmon. For
example, Olsen et al. (1991) found that users contribute 65% to the total regional willingness-to-pay
(WTP) value ($171 million in 1989$) for doubling the Columbia River salmon and steelhead runs. Non-
users with zero probability of participation in the sport fishery contributed 25%. Non-users with some
probability of future participation contributed the remaining 10%.
*• T&E species that do not have consumptive uses, but are likely to have relatively large non-consumptive
and indirect use values. The total value of such species would include non-consumptive use and indirect
values and existence values. Loggerhead sea turtles can represent such species. The non-consumptive use
of loggerhead sea turtles may include photography or observation of nesting or swimming reptiles. For
example, a study by Whitehead and Bloomquist (1992) reports that the average subjective probability that
North Carolina residents will visit the North Carolina coast for non-consumptive use recreation is 0.498.
Policies that protect loggerhead sea turtles may therefore enhance individual welfare for a large group of
participants in turtle viewing and photography.
*• T&E species whose total value is a pure non-use value. Some prominent T&E species with minimal or no
use values may have high non-use values. The bald eagle and the gray whale are examples of such
species. Conversely, many T&E species with little or no use value are not well known or of significant
public interest and therefore their non-use values may be challenging for individuals to report. Most
obscure T&E species, which may have ecological, biological diversity, and other non-use values, are
likely to fall into this category.
Non-use motives are often the principal source of benefits estimates for T&E species because many T&E species
fall into the "obscure species" group. As described in greater detail in Chapter A3, motives often associated with
non-use values held for T&E species include bequest (i.e., intergenerational equity) and existence
(i.e., preservation and stewardship) values. These non-use values are not necessarily limited to T&E species, but
I&E-related adverse impacts to these unique species would be locally or globally irreversible, leading to
extinction being a relevant concern. Irreversible adverse impacts on unique resources are not a necessary
condition for the presence of significant non-use values, but these attributes (e.g., uniqueness; irreversibility; and
regional, national, or international significance) would generally be expected to generate relatively high non-use
values (Harpman et al., 1993; Carson et al., 1999).
A9-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9
A9-3 Methods Available for Estimating the Economic Value Associated with I&E of
T&E Species
Estimating the value of increased protection of T&E species from reducing I&E impacts requires the following
steps:
>• estimating I&E impacts on T&E species; and
>• attaching an economic value to changes in T&E status from reducing I&E impacts on species of concern
(e.g., increasing species population, preventing species extinction).
A9-3.1 Estimating I&E Impacts on T&E Species
Several cases of I&E of federally-protected species by CWIS are documented, including the delta smelt in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, sea turtles in the Delaware Estuary and elsewhere (NMFS, 200 Ib),
shortnose sturgeon eggs and larvae in the Hudson River (NYSDEC, 2003), and pallid sturgeon eggs and larvae in
the Great Rivers Basin (Dames & Moore, 1977). Mortality rates vary by species and life stage: it is estimated to
range from 2 to 7% for impinged sea turtles (NMFS, 200 Ib), but mortality can be expected to be much higher for
entrained eggs and larvae of the shortnose sturgeon and other special status fish species. The estimated yearly take
of delta smelt by CWIS in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta led to the development of a Habitat
Conservation Plan as part of an incidental take permit application (Southern Energy Delta LLC, 2000).
A9-3.2 Economic Valuation Methods
Valuing impacts on special status species requires using nonmarket valuation methods to assign likely values to
losses of these individuals. The fact that many of these species typically are not commercially or recreationally
harvested (once they are listed) means no market value can be placed on their consumption. Benefits estimates are
therefore often confined to non-use values for special status species. The total economic value of preserving
species with potentially high use values (i.e., T&E salmon runs) should include both use and non-use values.
Economic tools allowing estimates of both use and non-use values (e.g., stated preference methods) may be
suitable for calculating the benefits of preserving T&E species. The relevant methods are briefly summarized
below.
It is necessary to note that the benefits of preserving T&E species estimated to date reflect a human-centered
view; benefit cost analysis may need to be supplemented with other analyses when T&E species are involved
because extinction is irreversible.
a. Stated preference methods
As described in Chapter A3, the only available way to directly estimate non-use values for special status species is
through applying stated preference methods, such as the contingent valuation method (CVM). This method relies
on statements of intended or hypothetical behavior elicited though surveys to value species. CVM has sometimes
been criticized, especially in applications dating back a decade or more, because the analyst cannot verify whether
the stated values are realistic and absent of various potential biases. CVM and other stated preference techniques
(including conjoint analysis) have evolved and improved in recent years, however, and empirical evidence shows
that the method can yield reliable (and perhaps even conservative) results where stated preference results are
compared to those from revealed preference estimates (e.g., angling participation as observable behavior) (Carson
etal., 1996).
b. Benefit transfer approach
Using a benefit transfer approach may be a viable option in some cases. By definition, benefit transfer involves
extrapolating the benefits findings estimated from one analytic situation to another situation(s). The initial
analytic situation is defined in terms of an environmental resource (e.g., T&E species), the policy variable(s)
(e.g., changes in species status or population), and the benefiting populations being investigated. Only in ideal
circumstances do the environmental resource and policy variables of the original study very closely match those
A9-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9
of the analytic situation to which a policy or regulatory analyst may wish to extrapolate study results. Despite
discrepancies, this approach may provide useful insights into benefits to society from reducing stress on T&E
species.
The current approach to benefit transfers most often focuses on the meta-analysis of point estimates of the
Hicksian or Marshalian surplus reported from original studies. If, for example, the number of candidate studies is
small and the variation of characteristics among the studies is substantial, then meta-analysis is not feasible. This
is likely to be the case when T&E species are involved, requiring a more careful consideration of analytic
situations in the original and policy studies. If only one or a few studies are available, an analyst evaluates their
transferability based on technical criteria developed by Desvousges et al. (1992).
EPA illustrated the economic value to society of protecting T&E species by conducting a review of the contingent
valuation (CV) literature that estimates WTP to protect those species. This review focused on those studies
valuing those aquatic species that may be at risk of I&E by CWIS. EPA also identified studies that provide WTP
estimates for fish-eating species, i.e., the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and the whooping crane. These species may
also be at risk because they rely to some degree on aquatic organisms as a food source. EPA used select studies
identified in a meta-analysis that Loomis and White (1996) conducted as a literature base. Loomis and White
included all rare or endangered species in their analysis, but EPA limited its own literature review to those studies
that valued threatened or endangered aquatic species, or birds that consume aquatic species. Table A9-1 lists the
14 relevant CV studies that EPA identified and provides corresponding WTP estimates and selected study
characteristics. WTP estimates represent either one-time payments, annual payments, or an annual payment in a 5-
year program. The table indicates which of these payment types each WTP estimate represents, along with the
corresponding value, inflated to 2004$. EPA also converted lump-sum payments and 5-year program annual
payments into annualized values in order to aid in the comparison of values from all studies..3.
The identified valuation studies vary in terms of the species valued and the specific environmental change valued.
Thirteen of these studies represent a total of 16 different species. In addition, one study (Walsh et al., 1985)
estimates WTP for a group of 26 species. Most of these studies value prominent species well known by the public,
such as salmon. The studies valued one of the following general types of environmental changes:
*• avoidance of species loss/extinction;
*• species recovery/gain;
*• acceleration of the recovery process;
*• improvement of an area of a species' habitat; and
*• increases in species population.
In order to compare consistent measures of WTP, EPA chose to use values that represent either annual or
annualized WTP, which represent conservative estimates of consumer surplus. These measures are conservative
because the value of preserving or improving populations of T&E species reported in T&E valuation studies has a
wide range. Mean annual (or annualized) household WTP estimates of obscure aquatic species range from $7.89
(2004$) for the striped shiner (Boyle and Bishop, 1987) to $8.73 for the silvery minnow (Berrens et al., 1996). It
is not likely that use values associated with these species are significant.
3 For each study that presents annual payments in a 5-year program, EPA calculated the present value of those
payments using a 3% discount rate, and annualized present day value over 25 years using the same discount factor.
EPA considered lump-sum payments to represent present value, and thus merely annualized these payments using the
same assumptions.
A9-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9
WTP for prominent fish species range from the relatively low estimate of $2.40 (2004$; Stevens et al., 1991), to
$9.16 (Stevens et al., 1991); both values are mean non-user WTP for Atlantic salmon, and are annualized. Total
user values are much higher for Atlantic salmon, as this species is commonly targeted by recreational anglers.-4.
WTP estimates for fish-eating species (i.e., whooping crane, bald eagle, and peregrine falcon), which all have
high non-use values (i.e., existence value), range from $4.60 (Carson et al., 1994) to $65.15 (Bowker and Stoll,
1988). It is important to note that the above WTP ranges are derived from studies that used various valuation
scenarios and valued different types of environmental changes, and therefore should be viewed as approximate
values as opposed to finite ranges.
It may be possible to develop individual WTP ranges for a given species or species group based on the estimated
changes in T&E status (e.g., species gain or recovery) from reducing I&E impacts and the applicable WTP values
from existing studies.
Once individual WTP for protecting T&E species or increasing their population is developed, the next step is to
estimate total benefits from reducing I&E of the special status species. The analyst should apply the estimated
WTP value to the relevant population groups to estimate the total value of improving protection of T&E species.
The affected population may include both potential users and non-users, depending on species type. The relevant
population may also include area residents, regional population, or, in exceptional cases (e.g., bald eagle), the
U.S. population. The total value of improved protection of T&E species (e.g., preventing extinction or doubling
the population size) should be then adjusted to reflect the percentage of cumulative environmental stress
attributable to I&E.
c. Cost of T&E species restoration
Under specific circumstances it is possible to infer how much value society places on a program or activity by
observing how much society is willing to forego (in out-of-pocket expenses and opportunity costs) to implement
the program. For example, the costs borne by society to implement programs that preserve and restore special
status species can, under select conditions, be interpreted as a measure of how much society values the outcomes
it anticipates receiving. This approach is analogous to the broadly accepted revealed preference method of
inferring values for private goods and services based on observed individual behavior.
In the case of observed individual behavior, when a person willingly bears a cost (pays a price) to receive a good
or service, then it is deduced that the person's value for that acquired good or service must be at least as great as
the price paid. That is, based on the presumption that individual behavior reflects the economic rationality of
seeking to maximize utility (well-being), the person's observed WTP must exceed the price paid, otherwise they
would not have purchased that unit of the commodity. The approach described in this section uses the same
premise, but applies it to societal choices rather than to a single individual's choices.
A critical issue with the approach is determining when it is likely that a specific public sector activity (or other
form of collective action) does indeed reflect a "societal choice." Not every policy enacted by a public sector
entity can be interpreted as an indication of social choice. Hence, the costs imposed in such instances may not in
any way reveal social values. For example, some regulatory actions may have monetized social costs that
outweigh the monetized social benefits, but an action may be tougher because of legal requirements or other
considerations. In such a case, asserting that the costs imposed reflect a lower bound estimate of the "value" of the
action would not be accurate (the values may be less than the imposed costs). Alternatively, there are some
regulatory programs for which the benefits greatly exceed costs, and in such instances using costs as a reflection
of value would greatly understate social benefits.
4. See Chapter A5 of this report for details on recreational fishing values for Atlantic salmon.
A9-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A9
Table A9-1: WTP for Improving T&E Species Populations8
Species
Type Reference
Aquatic Berrens
etal.
Boyle and
Bishop
Carson
etal.
Cummings
etal.
Duffield
and
Patterson
Kotchen
and Reiling
Loomis and
Larson
Publi-
cation Survey
Date Date Species
1996 1995 Silvery
minnow
1987 1984 Striped
shiner
1994 1994 Kelp bass,
white
croaker,
bald eagle,
peregrine
falcon
1994 1994 Squawfish
1992 1992 Arctic
grayling
Cutthroat
trout
2000 1997 Shortnose
sturgeon
1994 1991 Gray
whale
Environ-
mental
Change
Maintain
instream
flow to
protect
species
Avoid loss
Speed
recovery
from 50 to
5 years
Avoid loss
Improve 1
of 3 rivers
Recovery
to self-
sustaining
population
Gain
Gain
Gain
Size of Value
Change Typeb.
5
100% A
L
100% A
L
L
L
50% A
100% A
50% A
Mean
WTP
(2004$)
$34.69
$7.89
$82.64
$11.00
$22.69
$17.02
$31.33
$22.41
$25.13
$34.63
Annual or
Annualized
Mean WTP
(2004S)C
$8.73
$7.89
$4.61
$11.00
$1.27
$0.94
$1.74
$22.41
$25.13
$34.63
CVM
Method
DC
DC
DC
OE
PC
PC
DC
OE
OE
OE
Survey
Region
NM
households
WI
households
CA
households
NM
U.S. visitors
U.S. visitors
Maine
residents
(random)
CA
households
CA
households
CA visitors
Sample Response Payment
Size Rate Vehicle
698 45% Trust fund
365 73% Foundation
2,810 73% One-time tax
921 42% Increase
state taxes
157 27% Trust fund
170 77% Trust fund
635 63% One-time tax
890 54% Protection
fund
890 54% Protection
fund
1,003 72% Protection
fund
A9-,
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A9
Table A9-1: WTP for Improving T&E Species Populations8
Species
Type Reference
Loomis and
Larson
(cont.)
Olsen
etal.
Stevens
etal.
Walsh
etal.
Whitehead
and
Bloomquist
Fish- Bowker
eating and Stoll
birds
Boyle and
Bishop
Carson
etal.
Publi-
cation Survey
Date Date Species
1994 1991 Gray
whale
1991 1989 Pacific
salmon
and
steelhead
1991 1989 Atlantic
salmon
Atlantic
salmon
1994 1993 Atlantic
salmon
Atlantic
salmon
1985 1985 26 species
in CO
1992 1991 Sea turtle
1988 1983 Whooping
crane
Whooping
crane
1987 1984 Bald eagle
1994 1994 Bald eagle,
peregrine
falcon,
kelp bass,
white
croaker
Environ-
mental
Change
Gain
Gain
(existence
value)
Gain (user
value)
Avoid loss
Avoid loss
Gain
Gain
Avoid loss
Avoid loss
Avoid loss
Avoid loss
Avoid loss
Speed
recovery
from 50 to
5 years
Mean
Size of Value WTP
Change Type" (2004$)
100% A $41.18
100% A $40.90
100% A $115.53
100% 5 $9.53
100% 5 $10.58
50% 5 $25.39
90% 5 $36.46
100% A $75.80
100% L $16.97
100% A $41.58
100% A $65.24
100% A $20.12
L $82.64
Annual or
Annualized
Mean WTP
(2004$)c
$41.18
$40.90
$115.53
$2.40
$2.67
$6.39
$9.17
$75.80
$0.94
$41.58
$65.24
$20.12
$4.61
CVM Survey
Method Region
OE CA visitors
OE Pac. NW
household
OE Pac. NW
anglers
DC MA
households
OE MA
households
DCOE College
students
DCOE College
students
OE CO
households
DC NC
households
DC TX and
U.S. visitors
DC TX and
U.S. visitors
DC WI
households
DC CA
households
Sample
Size
1,003
695
482
169
169
76
76
198
207
316
254
365
2,810
Response
Rate
72%
72%
72%
30%
30%
93%
93%
99%
35%
36%
67%
73%
73%
Payment
Vehicle
Protection
fund
Electric bill
Electric bill
Trust fund
Trust fund
Contribution
Contribution
Taxes
Preservation
fund
Foundation
Foundation
Foundation
A9-9
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A9
Table A9-1: WTP for Improving T&E Species Populations8
Publi-
Species cation Survey
Type Reference Date Date Species
Stevens 1991 1989 Bald eagle
etal.
Bald eagle
Swanson 1993 1991 Bald eagle
Bald eagle
Environ-
mental
Change
Avoid loss
Avoid loss
Increase in
populations
Increase in
populations
Size of
Change
100%
100%
300%
300%
Value
Type"
A
A
L
L
Mean
WTP
(2004$)
$43.05
$30.33
$332.76
$233.08
Annual or
Annualized
Mean WTP
(2004$)c
$43.05
$30.33
$18.55
$13.00
CVM
Method
DCOE
DCOE
DC
OE
Survey
Region
NE
households
NE
households
WA visitors
WA visitors
Sample
Size
339
339
747
747
Response
Rate
37%
37%
57%
57%
Payment
Vehicle
Trust fund
Trust fund
Membership
fund
Membership
fund
.". Exhibit adapted from Loomis and White (1996) and includes only those studies that valued aquatic species or fish-eating birds.
b Indicates type/length of WTP payment reported in study: 5 = annual payment in 5-year program; L = lump-sum, or one-time, payment; A = annual payment.
°. Lump-sum values are annualized over 25 years using a 3% discount rate; values that are annual payments in 5-year programs were converted into present value before annualizing over
25 years at a 3% discount rate; annual payments are presented as in the original study, inflated to 2004$ using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Values that already represent annual
values are unadjusted.
Sources: Loomis and White, 1996; CPI: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004.
A9-10
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9
There are some public policy actions that can be suitably interpreted as expressions of societal preferences and
values. In these instances, the incurred costs may be viewed as an indication of social values. The criteria to help
identify when such situations arise include whether the actions taken are voluntary, or whether the actions reflect
an open and broadly inclusive policy-making process that enables and encourages active participation by a broad
spectrum of stakeholders. This is especially relevant where (1) plans and actions are developed in an inclusive,
consensus-building manner; (2) implementation steps are pursued in an adaptive management framework that
enables continuous feedback and refinement; or (3) the actions are ultimately supported by some positive
indication of broad community support, such as voter approval of a referendum. In such instances, the policy
choices made are the product of a broad-based, collective decision-making process, and such programs can be
viewed as an expression of societal preferences. When programs or activities stem from such open collective
processes, the actions (and costs incurred) may reflect the revealed preference of society.
EPA's method of valuing T&E species results in a three-step process. First, using the criteria above, EPA
determines which action can be viewed as reflecting societal preferences. Next, estimates of costs incurred and
anticipated from voluntary or other suitable collective actions taken to maintain and or increase the populations of
T&E species (e.g., restoration of critical spawning or nursery habitat) are combined with estimates of the value of
any foregone opportunities (i.e., opportunity costs, where direct costs are not involved) from additional actions
required to achieve the T&E population objectives (e.g., maintaining instream flows for a species instead of
providing water for agricultural diversions). This resulting total social cost provides a cumulative estimate of
society's valuation of the preservation and enhancement of the T&E species affected by the actions. Categories of
actions that would be addressed in this step could include private and public expenditures on habitat
restoration/population enhancement programs, funds that have been allocated for such actions through legislative
appropriations or public referenda (even if not yet expended), or resources allocated through a formal project
evaluation and selection process designed to allocate limited resources such as those used by numerous state and
federal resource management agencies.
Third, the numbers of the T&E organisms that are expected to benefit from the identified actions, as measured by
the increased production or avoided losses of individuals, are estimated to place the valuation estimates in
context. If dollar per organism results are required for a valuation analysis, as is the case in this analysis, the
estimates from the second step can be divided by the increased production (avoided loss) estimate from the third
step to provide such results.
The economic foundations for using this approach to value T&E species are established through the widespread
recognition and acceptance of revealed preference data as a source of nonmarket information that is acceptable for
the valuation of resources. As discussed above, in EPA's approach, valuation estimates rely on the costs of
actions or the value of foregone opportunities that are voluntarily undertaken or that have been approved through
extensive public input and review (and developed in a consensus-oriented approach). With these sources of data,
the method avoids the well-established problems associated with using "costs" as a measure of "value" — a
problem that can arise when the cost is realized involuntarily (e.g., avoided cost-based measures of value).
Specifically, because of the available evidence of the public's acceptance and willingness to incur the opportunity
costs associated with the actions that are selected for evaluation, the fundamental criteria for defining the value of
any resource are satisfied.
One issue that arises with the use of the method is that it is not clear that the resulting values can be distinctly
categorized as direct use or non-use values because the underlying actions benefiting the T&E species could
reflect an expressed mix of non-use values (e.g., preservation and existence) and discounted future use values
(i.e., the actions are seen as an "investment" that could return the species to levels at which direct use would be
permitted). It is believed that results could provide an approximation of the total use value for the T&E species in
question.
A9-11
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9
A9-4 Issues in Estimating and Valuing Environmental Impacts from I&E on
T&E Species
Several technical and conceptual issues are associated with valuing I&E impacts on T&E species:
>• issues associated with estimating the size of a species' population;
>• issues associated with estimating the contribution of I&E to the cumulative impacts of all stressors; and
>• issues associated with implementing an economic valuation approach.
A9-4.1 Issues in Estimating the Size of the Population of Special Status Species
Difficulties in estimating the number of individuals or size of the population of special status fish present in a
given location are often very difficult for numerous reasons, including the following:
>• the act of monitoring a T&E species is problematic in and of itself because, by definition, the species is
rare, and monitoring can result in some harm to the species. Researchers and federal agencies can
therefore be reluctant to undertake such monitoring;
>• monitoring programs typically focus only on harvested species and so do not provide any information
with regard to non-harvested T&E species that are subject to I&E; and
>• the number of individuals of a T&E species may be so low that they rarely or never show up in
monitoring programs.
Deriving population estimates from existing monitoring programs often means extrapolating monitoring sample
catches to the population as a whole. The variance in estimates is likely to be very high because of several
assumptions that must be met when extrapolating monitoring sample catches to population estimates in order to
create an accurate estimate:
>• species are completely recruited and vulnerable to the gear (i.e., are large enough to be retained by the
mesh and do not preferentially occupy habitats not sampled) or selectivity of the gear by size is known;
>• sampling fixed locations for species approximates random sampling;
>• species are uniformly distributed through the water column;
>• volume filtered by sampling trawls can be accurately estimated; and
>• volumes of water can be estimated for each embayment in the habitat range for the species.
A9-4.2 Issues Associated with Estimating I&E Contribution to the Cumulative Impact from All Stressors
There are also issues associated with estimating the relative contribution of I&E to the total impact of all stressors
on T&E species:
>• Because, as outlined above, the size of populations of T&E species is hard to measure even if I&E data
are available from facilities with cooling water intake structures, it may be difficult to determine how
much of an impact I&E has on population levels. For very rare species, even relatively low levels of I&E
may be important.
>• There are often a number of stressors that harm or limit populations of special status fish. Even if
significant numbers of fish are lost to I&E, other factors may still have a greater role in determining
populations levels. For example, if lack of spawning areas is limiting population growth of a species, then
reducing I&E of that species may not increase the population.
A9-4.3 Issues Associated with Implementing an Economic Valuation Approach
a. Issues associated with benefit transfer approach
The following issues may arise when using a benefit transfer approach:
A9-12
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9
>• Some studies estimated WTP for multiple species. Values established by Walsh et al. (1985), Olsen et al.
(1991), and Carson et al. (1994) are for groups of T&E species, and therefore transferring values from
these studies to particular species may not be feasible.
>• The type of environmental change valued in the study may not match the environmental changes resulting
from reducing I&E impacts. As noted above, previous T&E valuation studies addressed one of the
following qualitative changes in T&E status:
• avoidance of species loss/extinction;
• species recovery/gain;
• acceleration of the recovery process;
• improvement of an area of a species' habitat; and
• increases in species population.
>• The size of the environmental change that the hypothetical scenario defines is also vital for developing
WTP estimates. Several studies describe programs that avoid the loss of a species. This outcome may be
considered a 100% improvement with respect to the alternative, extinction, but the restoration of a species
or the increase in population may be specified at any level (e.g., 50%, 300%). Swanson (1993) estimated
a 300% increase in bald eagle populations and Boyle and Bishop (1987) estimated WTP to avoid the
possibility of bald eagle extinction in Wisconsin (cited in Loomis and White, 1996). Although avoiding
extinction may be considered a 100% improvement, this environmental change is not comparable to the
300% increase in existing populations. Preventing regional extinction is quite different than realizing a
nominal increase in species population (in which the alternative is not necessarily species loss). Since
different studies measure different types of improvements, creating a common metric with which to
transfer values can be difficult.
*• Although a considerable amount of CV literature has valued T&E species, such research is largely limited
to species with high consumptive use or non-use values. They either have high recreational or commercial
value, or are popularly valued as significant species for various reasons (e.g., national symbol, aesthetics).
Transferring these values to other species may not be appropriate. Many T&E species that are likely to be
affected by I&E (either federal or state-listed) are obscure, and WTP for their preservation has not been
estimated.
b. Issues associated with cost of restoration approach
The following issues may arise when using a cost of restoration approach:
*• "Restoration" programs need not be relied on exclusively to infer societal WTP to preserve special status
species. In many instances, other programs or restrictions are used in lieu of (or in conjunction with)
restoration programs. In these cases, the costs associated with the restoration components also reveal a
WTP. Collecting all of these components may be challenging.
*• Costs directed at a special status species must be isolated from program elements intended to address
other species or problems. In a multifaceted restoration or use restriction program, the percentage of costs
used mainly to target restoration of special status species as opposed to other ecosystem benefits needs to
be estimated. Separating these components out for an accurate valuation can be challenging.
*• Estimates of the change in species abundance associated with the program must be developed, since the
size of the change in species abundance is necessary to determine societal WTP per individual. Often
targets are set to abundance levels that existed before a significant decline in populations. However, a
habitat restoration program may target restoration of special status species, but might not target a specific
population size making calculation of societal WTP per individual difficult.
A9-13
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment
Part B: California
Find the other parts of this document at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/316b/
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Chapter Bl
Chapter Bl: Background
Introduction
Chapter Contents
Bl-1 Facility Characteristics Bl-1
This chapter presents an overview of the potential
Phase III existing facilities in the California study
region and summarizes their key cooling water and
compliance characteristics. For further discussion of
the technical and compliance characteristics of potential Phase III existing facilities, refer to the Economic
Analysis for the Final Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities and the Technical Development Document for
the Final Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2006a,c).
Bl-1 Facility Characteristics
The California Regional Study includes four sample facilities that are potentially subject to the national standards
for Phase III existing facilities. Figure Bl-1 presents a map of these facilities. All four facilities are manufacturing
facilities. Industry-wide, these four sample facilities represent nine manufacturing facilities..1.
1 EPA applied sample weights to the survey respondents to account for non-sampled facilities and facilities that did
not respond to the survey. For more information on EPA's 2000 Section 316(b) Industry Survey, please refer to the
Information Collection Request (U.S. EPA, 2000b).
Bl-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Chapter Bl
Figure Bl-1: Potential Existing Phase III Facilities in the California Regional Study"
Potential Phase III Existing Facilities (Count)
O Electric Generating Facility (0) J California Region with Counties
• Manufacturing Facility (4)
0 80 160 M es
,a The map includes locations of sample facilities only.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Bl-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Chapter Bl
Table Bl-1 summarizes key technical and compliance characteristics for all potentially regulated Phase III
existing facilities in the California study region for the regulatory analysis options considered by EPA for this rule
(the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, and the "100 MOD for
Certain Waterbodies" option). Facilities with a design intake flow below the three applicability thresholds would
be subject to permitting based on best professional judgment and are excluded from EPA's analyses.2 Therefore,
a different number of facilities is affected under each option.
Table Bl-1 shows that nine Phase III existing facilities in the California study region would potentially be subject
to the national requirements. Under the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option, the most inclusive of the
regulatory analysis options, only one facility would be subject to the national requirements for Phase III existing
facilities. Under the less inclusive "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option and the "100 MGD for Certain
Waterbodies" option (which includes all facilities in the California study region), no facilities would be subject to
the national requirements. One facility in the California study region has a recirculating system in the baseline.
Data on design intake flow for the California study facilities have been withheld due to data confidentiality
reasons.
Table Bl-1: Technical and Compliance Characteristics of Phase III Existing Facilities (sample-weighted)
Total Number of Facilities (sample-weighted)
Number of Facilities with Recirculating System in Baseline
Design Intake Flow (MGD)
Number of Facilities by Compliance Response
New larger intake structure with fine mesh and fish H&R
Passive fine mesh screens
None
Compliance Cost, Discounted at 3%b
Compliance Cost, Discounted at 7%b
All Potentially
Regulated
Facilities
9
1
wa
1
8
$1.79
$1.69
Regulatory
Analysis Options
50 MGD 200 MGD 100 MGD
All All CWB
1
-
wa
1
$0.40
$0.42
$0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00
a. Data withheld because of confidentiality reasons.
Annualized pre-tax compliance cost (2004$, millions).
Sources: U.S. EPA, 2000b; U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Also excluded are facilities that are estimated to be baseline closures. For additional information on EPA's
baseline closure analyses, please refer to the Economic Analysis for the Final Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III
Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2006a).
Bl-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Appendix Bl: Life History Parameter
Values Used to Evaluate I&E in the
California Region
The tables in this appendix present the life history parameter values used by EPA to calculate age-1 equivalents
and fishery yields from impingement and entrainment (I&E) data for the California region. Because of differences
in the number of life stages represented in the loss data, there are cases where more than one life stage sequence
was needed for a given species or species group. Alternative parameter sets were developed for this purpose and
are indicated with a number following the species or species group name (i.e., Anchovies 1, Anchovies 2).
Table Bl-1: American Shad Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Sources: USFWS,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.496
3.01
7.40
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.540
1.02
1.50
1.50
1.50
1978; Able and Fahay,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.45
0.90
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.000000728
0.000746
0.309
1.17
2.32
3.51
4.56
5.47
6.20
6.77
1998; andPSE&G, 1999.
App. Bl-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table Bl-2: Anchovies Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.669
7.99
2.12
0.700
0.700
0.700
0.700
0.700
0.700
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
a. Includes northern anchovy, deepbody anchovy, slough anchovy
species.
Sources: Ecological Analysts, 198 Ib; Wang, 1986; PFMC, 1998,
Environmental Services, 2000a; and Froese andPauly, 2002.
Parameters 1".
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
, and other anchovies
• Virginia Tech, 1998;
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000138
0.00000151
0.0132
0.0408
0.529
0.0609
0.0684
0.0763
0.0789
not identified to
Tenera
Table Bl-3: Anchovies Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae 3 mm
Larvae 4 mm
Larvae 5 mm
Larvae 6 mm
Larvae 7 mm
Larvae 8 mm
Larvae 9 mm
Larvae 10 mm
Larvae 1 1 mm
Larvae 12 mm
Larvae 13 mm
Larvae 14 mm
Larvae 15 mm
Larvae 16 mm
Larvae 17mm
Larvae 1 8 mm
Larvae 19 mm
Larvae 20 mm
Larvae 21 mm
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.669
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parameters 2".
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000138
0.00000151
0.00000173
0.00000334
0.00000572
0.00000901
0.0000134
0.0000189
0.0000258
0.0000342
0.0000442
0.0000559
0.0000696
0.0000853
0.000103
0.000123
0.000146
0.000171
0.000199
0.000230
App. Bl-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table Bl-3: Anchovies Life History Parameters 2".
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Stage Name (M)
Larvae 22 mm 0.172
Larvae 23 mm 0.172
Larvae 24 mm 0.172
Larvae 25 mm 0.172
Larvae 26 mm 0.172
Larvae 27 mm 0.172
Larvae 28 mm 0.172
Larvae 29 mm 0.172
Larvae 30 mm 0.172
Larvae 3 1mm 0.172
Larvae 32 mm 0.172
Larvae 33 mm 0.172
Larvae 34 mm 0.172
Larvae 35 mm 0.172
Larvae 36 mm 0.172
Larvae 37 mm 0.172
Larvae 38 mm 0.172
Larvae 39 mm 0.172
Larvae 40 mm 0.172
Larvae 41 mm 1.249
Larvae 59 mm 0.208
Juvenile 2.12
Age 1+ 0.700
Age 2+ 0.700
Age 3+ 0.700
Age 4+ 0.700
Age 5+ 0.700
Age 6+ 0.700
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
a. Includes northern anchovy.
Sources: Ecological Analysts, 1980b, 198 Ib; Wang, 1986; PFMC,
Services, 2000a; andFroese andPauly, 2002.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000264
0.000301
0.000341
0.000385
0.000432
0.000483
0.000538
0.000597
0.000659
0.000726
0.000798
0.000873
0.000954
0.00104
0.00113
0.00122
0.00132
0.00143
0.00154
0.00166
0.00485
0.0132
0.0408
0.0529
0.0609
0.0684
0.0763
0.0789
1998; Tenera Environmental
App. Bl-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table Bl-4: Anchovies Life History Parameters 3".
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae 6 mm
Larvae 7 mm
Larvae 9 mm
Larvae 10 mm
Larvae 1 1 mm
Larvae 12 mm
Larvae 13 mm
Larvae 14 mm
Larvae 15 mm
Larvae 17mm
Larvae 19 mm
Larvae 20 mm
Larvae 21 mm
Larvae 23 mm
Larvae 26 mm
Larvae 28 mm
Larvae 29 mm
Larvae 30 mm
Larvae 3 1 mm
Larvae 32 mm
Larvae 38 mm
Larvae 57 mm
Larvae 62 mm
Larvae 64 mm
Larvae 65 mm
Larvae 66 mm
Larvae 67 mm
Larvae 70 mm
Larvae 75 mm
Larvae 8 1 mm
Larvae 82 mm
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(M) (F) Fishery
0.669
0.104
0.207
0.104
0.104
0.104
0.104
0.104
0.104
0.207
0.207
0.104
0.104
0.207
0.311
0.207
0.104
0.104
0.104
0.104
0.622
1.97
0.519
0.207
0.104
0.104
0.104
0.311
0.519
0.622
0.104
0.104
2.12
0.700
0.700
0.700
0.700
0.700
0.700
a. Includes northern anchovy.
Sources: Ecological Analysts, 1980b, 198 Ib,
Environmental Services, 2000a; andFroese
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
1982a; Wang, 1986;
andPauly, 2002.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
PFMC, 1998;
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000138
0.00000572
0.00000901
0.0000189
0.0000258
0.0000342
0.0000442
0.0000559
0.0000696
0.0000853
0.000123
0.000171
0.000199
0.000230
0.000301
0.000432
0.000538
0.000597
0.000659
0.000726
0.000798
0.00132
0.00438
0.00561
0.00616
0.00645
0.00675
0.00706
0.00803
0.00984
0.0123
0.0128
0.0132
0.0408
0.0529
0.0609
0.0684
0.0763
0.0789
Tenera
App. Bl-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table Bl-5: Blennies Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.105
3.98
0.916
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parameters"
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000176
0.00000193
0.000501
0.00314
0.00745
0.0101
0.0113
0.0119
0.0122
0.0123
0.0123
0.0124
a. Includes bay blenny, combtooth blenny, mussel blenny, orangethroat pikeblenny, rockpool blenny,
tube blenny, and other blennies not identified to species.
Sources: Froese and Binohlan, 2000; Tenera Environmental Services, 2000b; andFroese andPauly,
2003.
APP. Bl-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table Bl-6: Cabezon Life History Parameters
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Name (M)
2.30
3.79
0.916
0.288
0.144
0.144
0.144
0.144
0.144
0.144
0.144
0.144
0.144
0.144
0.144
0.144
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Sources: O 'Cornell, 1953; Tenera Environmental Services, 1988; Cailliet, 2000;
and personal communication with Y. DeReynier (NMFS, November 19, 2002).
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000430
0.000605
0.00825
0.169
1.06
3.26
4.72
5.30
6.13
6.78
7.37
8.76
9.23
10.5
12.0
13.7
Leetetal, 2001;
Table Bl-7: California Halibut Life History Parameters
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Name (M)
0.223
2.86
0.555
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000548
0.00000444
0.0170
0.130
0.739
1.94
3.87
6.21
8.89
12.2
15.3
18.9
21.3
23.8
26.6
App. Bl-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table Bl-7: California Halibut Life History Parameters
Stage
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age 21+
Age 22+
Age 23+
Age 24+
Age 25+
Age 26+
Age 27+
Age 28+
Age 29+
Age 30+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Name (M)
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
28.6
30.7
33.0
35.3
37.7
40.2
42.9
45.7
48.5
51.5
54.7
57.9
61.3
64.8
68.4
72.2
76.1
80.1
Sources: Kucas and Hassler, 1986; Cailliet, 2000; Tenera Environmental Services, 2000a; Leet et
al, 2001; Froese andPauly, 2002; and personal communication with Y. DeReynier (NMFS,
November 19, 2002).
Table Bl-8: California Scorpionfish Life
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Name (M)
2.30
1.00
1.00
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
History Parameters3
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000200
0.00000219
0.000712
0.281
0.445
0.662
0.940
1.42
1.80
2.19
2.58
2.95
App. Bl-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table Bl-8: California Scorpionfish Life
Stage Name
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age 21+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
History Parameters"
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
3.31
3.65
3.96
4.25
4.51
4.75
4.97
5.17
5.35
5.51
5.65
6.18
a. Includes California scorpionfish and spotted scorpionfish.
Sources: Cailliet, 2000; Froese andBinohlan, 2000; andLeet et al., 2001.
Table Bl-9: Chinook Salmon Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable Weight
(M) (F) to Fishery (Ibs)
Eggs
2.30
0
0
Larvae
5.04
Juvenile
0.916
Age 1+
0.160
Age 2+
0.160
Age 3+
0.160
Age 4+
0.160
Age 5+
0.160
0
0
0.000317
0.000349
0.199
0.397
4.50
12.2
Sources: Beauchamp et al, 1983; Allen andHassler, 1986; Wang, 1986; and Froese and Pauly,
2001.
Table Bl-10: Commercial Sea Basses/Recreational Sea Basses Life History Parameters8
Stage Name
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to Weight
(M) (F) Fishery (Ibs)
Eggs
0.288
0
0
0.00000101
Larvae
1.00
0.0000216
Juvenile
Age 1+
0.190
0.190
0.000138
0.0313
App. Bl-8
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table Bl-10: Commercial Sea Basses/Recreational Sea Basses Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age 21+
Age 22+
Age 23+
Age 24+
Age 25+
Age 26+
Age 27+
Age 28+
Age 29+
Age 30+
Age 31+
Age 32+
Age 33+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0625
0.125
0.312
0.531
0.813
1.13
1.50
1.88
2.19
2.30
2.41
2.67
2.93
3.19
3.44
3.69
3.94
4.19
4.42
4.66
4.88
5.10
5.31
5.51
5.71
5.90
6.08
6.25
6.42
6.58
6.73
6.88
a. Commercial sea bass species includes giant sea bass; recreational sea bass species includes barred
sand bass, paralabrax species, broomtail grouper, kelp bass, spotted bass, and spotted sand bass.
Sources: Cailliet, 2000; Froese andBinohlan, 2000; Leet et al, 2001; California Department of Fish
and Game, 2002; and Froese and Pauly, 2002.
APP. Bl-9
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table Bl-11: Commercial Shrimp Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.693
3.00
2.16
2.16
2.16
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0.14
0.14
0.14
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000249
0.000000736
0.0000865
0.000452
0.00236
a. Includes Alaskan bay shrimp, bay shrimp, black tailed bay shrimp, blackspotted shrimp, Franscican bay
shrimp, ghost shrimp, smooth bay shrimp, spot shrimp, and spotted bay shrimp.
Sources: Bielsa et al, 1983; Siegfried, 1989; Virginia Tech, 1998; Leet et al, 2001; and Tenera
Environmental Services, 2001.
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Sources: Wang,
and Kimmerer,
Table Bl-12:
Delta Smelt Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
(M) (F)
2.90
4.89
0.916
1.28
1986; Buckley, 1989;
2002.
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
Moyle et al, 1992; Froese andPauly, 2001,
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00000120
0.0000462
0.00418
2003; and Brown
App. Bl-10
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B 1
Table Bl-13: Drums/Croakers Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.500
4.61
3.38
0.420
0.420
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.10
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
a
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000722
0.00000464
0.000212
0.120
0.156
0.195
0.239
0.287
0.340
0.398
0.458
0.519
0.584
0.648
0.723
a. Includes black croaker, California corbina, queenfish, spotfin croaker, white croaker, white
seabass, yellowfin croaker, and other drums or croakers not identified to species.
Sources: Isaacson, 1964; Tenera Environmental Services, 1988, 2000b, 2001; andCailliet, 2000.
APP. Bl-11
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table Bl-14: Dungeness Crab Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Zoea/larvaea
Megalopae
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.223
1.20
1.20
0.500
0.500
0.500
1.71
1.71
1.71
1.71
1.71
1.71
1.71
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000153
0.000134
0.590
1.10
1.37
2.48
4.04
4.41
4.79
5.20
5.63
6.08
6.56
a. Life stages reported as larvae and zoea were assigned the same life history parameters.
Sources: Carroll, 1982; Wild and Tasto, 1983; Pauley et al, 1989; Virginia Tech, 1998; Tenera
Environmental Services, 2000a; University of Washington, 2000; andLeet et al, 2001,
Table Bl-15: Flounders Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.223
6.28
1.14
0.363
0.649
0.752
0.752
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.24
0.43
0.50
0.50
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000303
0.00121
0.00882
0.0672
0.226
0.553
1.13
a. Includes bigmouth sole, CO turbot, California halibut, curlfin sole, diamond turbot, Dover sole,
English sole, fantail sole, hornyhead turbot, longfin sanddab, Pacific sanddab, petrale sole, rock sole,
sand sole, slender sole, speckled sanddab, spotted turbot, starry flounder, and other flounders not
identified to species.
Sources:, Cailliet, 2000; ENSR and Marine Research, 2000; Tenera Environmental Services, 2000,a,
2001; Leet et al, 2001; and personal communication with Y. DeReynier (NMFS, November 19, 2002).
APP. Bl-12
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table Bl-16: Forage Shrimp Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.693
3.00
2.30
2.30
2.30
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000249
0.000000736
0.0000865
0.000131
0.00236
a. Includes anemone shrimp, blue mud shrimp, broken back shrimp, brown shrimp, California green
shrimp, dock shrimp, mysids, opossum shrimp, oriental shrimp, pistol shrimp, sidestriped shrimp, skeleton
shrimp, stout bodied shrimp, striped shrimp, tidepool shrimp, twistclaw pistol shrimp, and other shrimp
not identified to species.
Sources: Siegfried, 1989; Virginia Tech, 1998; and Tenera Environmental Services, 2001.
Table Bl-17: Gobies Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0
5.77
0.871
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000115
0.0000190
0.000169
0.00194
0.00414
0.00763
0.0310
0.0810
a. Includes arrow goby, bay goby, blackeye goby, blind goby, chameleon goby, cheekspot goby,
longjaw mudsucker shadow goby, yellowfin goby, and other gobies not identified to species.
Sources: Wang, 1986; Froese andPauly, 2000, 2002; Tenera Environmental Services, 2000a; and
NMFS, 2003a.
App. Bl-13
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table Bl-18: Herrings Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
4.61
0.693
0.473
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parameters 1."
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000164
0.00000180
0.00161
0.0408
0.128
0.167
0.211
0.258
0.288
0.330
0.345
0.353
0.364
0.375
a. Includes middle thread herring, Pacific herring, Pacific sardine, round herring, threadfin shad, and
other herrings not identified to species.
Sources: Ecological Analysts, 198Ib, 1982a; Lassuy, 1989; Tenera Environmental Services, 2001;
Froese andPauly, 2002; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table Bl-19: Herrings Life History Parameters 2."
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
Stage Name (M) (F)
Eggs
Larvae 6 mm
Larvae 7 mm
Larvae 8 mm
Larvae 9 mm
Larvae 10 mm
Larvae 1 1 mm
Larvae 12 mm
Larvae 13 mm
Larvae 14 mm
Larvae 15 mm
Larvae 16 mm
Larvae 17 mm
Larvae 1 8 mm
Larvae 19 mm
2.30
0.140
0.121
0.107
0.096
0.087
0.079
0.221
0.221
0.221
0.221
0.221
0.221
0.221
0.221
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000164
0.00000182
0.00000299
0.00000461
0.00000675
0.00000948
0.0000129
0.0000171
0.0000221
0.0000281
0.0000352
0.0000433
0.0000527
0.0000634
0.0000755
App. Bl-14
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Stage Name
Larvae 20 mm
Larvae 22 mm
Larvae 23 mm
Larvae 24 mm
Larvae 25 mm
Larvae 26 mm
Larvae 27 mm
Larvae 28 mm
Larvae 29 mm
Larvae 30 mm
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Table Bl-19:
Herrings Life History
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
(M) (F)
0.221
0.221
0.221
0.221
0.221
0.221
0.221
0.221
0.221
0.221
0.693
0.473
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parameters 2."
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000891
0.000121
0.000140
0.000161
0.000183
0.000208
0.000235
0.000264
0.000296
0.000330
0.00161
0.0408
0.128
0.167
0.211
0.258
0.288
0.330
0.345
0.353
0.364
0.375
a. Includes Pacific herring and other herrings not identified to species.
Sources: Ecological Analysts, 198 Ib; Wang, 1986; Lassuy, 1989; Tenera Environmental Services,
2001; Froese andPauly, 2002; andNMFS, 2003a.
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae 6 mm
Larvae 7 mm
Larvae 8 mm
Larvae 9 mm
Larvae 10 mm
Larvae 1 1 mm
Larvae 12 mm
Table Bl-20:
Herrings Life History
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
(M) (F)
2.30
0.107
0.107
0.107
0.107
0.107
0.107
0.107
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parameters 3."
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000164
0.00000182
0.00000299
0.00000461
0.00000675
0.00000948
0.0000129
0.0000171
App. Bl-15
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table Bl-20: Herrings Life History Parameters 3."
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable Weight
Stage Name (M) (F) to Fishery (Ibs)
Larvae 13 mm
Larvae 15 mm
Larvae 16 mm
Larvae 17mm
Larvae 1 8 mm
Larvae 19 mm
Larvae 20 mm
Larvae 21 mm
Larvae 22 mm
Larvae 23 mm
Larvae 24 mm
Larvae 25 mm
Larvae 47 mm
Larvae 48 mm
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
0.214
0.107
0.107
0.107
0.107
0.107
0.107
0.107
0.107
0.107
0.107
2.36
0.107
0.107
0.693
0.473
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a. Includes Pacific herring.
Sources: Ecological Analysts, 198 Ib, 1982a; Wang, 1986; Lassuy,
Services, 2001; Froese andPauly, 2002; andNMFS, 200 3 a.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1989;
0.0000221
0.0000352
0.0000433
0.0000527
0.0000634
0.0000755
0.0000891
0.000104
0.000121
0.000140
0.000161
0.000183
0.00141
0.00151
0.00161
0.0408
0.128
0.167
0.211
0.258
0.288
0.330
0.345
0.353
0.364
0.375
Tenera Environmental
App. Bl-16
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table Bl-21: Longfin Smelt Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Sources:, Wang,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.90
6.38
0.916
0.670
0.670
0.670
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00000186
0.000213
0.00355
0.0157
0.0434
1986; Buckley, 1989.; USFWS, 1996a; andFroese andPauly, 2001.
Table Bl-22: Northern Anchovy Life
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae 5 mm
Larvae 6 mm
Larvae 7 mm
Larvae 8 mm
Larvae 9 mm
Larvae 10 mm
Larvae 11 mm
Larvae 12 mm
Larvae 13 mm
Larvae 14 mm
Larvae 15 mm
Larvae 16 mm
Larvae 17 mm
Larvae 1 8 mm
Larvae 19 mm
Larvae 20 mm
Larvae 21 mm
Larvae 22 mm
Larvae 23 mm
Larvae 24 mm
Larvae 25 mm
Larvae 26 mm
Larvae 27 mm
Larvae 28 mm
Larvae 29 mm
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.669
1.71
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
History Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000138
0.00000334
0.00000572
0.00000901
0.0000134
0.0000189
0.0000258
0.0000342
0.0000442
0.0000559
0.0000696
0.0000853
0.000103
0.000123
0.000146
0.000171
0.000199
0.000230
0.000264
0.000301
0.000341
0.000385
0.000432
0.000483
0.000538
0.000597
App.Bl-17
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table Bl-22: Northern Anchovy Life
Stage Name
Larvae 30 mm
Larvae 3 1 mm
Larvae 32 mm
Larvae 33 mm
Larvae 34 mm
Larvae 35 mm
Larvae 36 mm
Larvae 37 mm
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
2.12
0.700
0.700
0.700
0.700
0.700
0.700
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
History Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000659
0.000726
0.000798
0.000873
0.000954
0.00104
0.00113
0.00122
0.0132
0.0408
0.0529
0.0609
0.0684
0.0763
0.0789
Sources: Ecological Analysts, 1980b; Wang, 1986; Virginia Tech, 1998; Tenera Environmental
Services, 2000a; and Froese and Pauly, 2002.
App. Bl-18
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table
Stage Name
Eggs
Zoea 1
Zoea2
Zoea 3
Zoea 4
Zoea 5
Megalopae
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Bl-23: Other Commercial Crabs Life
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0
1.58
0.948
0.948
0.948
1.26
2.31
2.43
2.43
2.43
1.82
1.82
1.82
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.61
0.61
0.61
History Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.'
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000153
0.00000195
0.00000726
0.0000177
0.0000347
0.0000598
0.000134
0.289
0.654
1.26
1.97
2.55
3.00
a. Includes Anthony's rock crab, black clawed crab, brown rock crab, common rock crab, cryptic kelp
crab, dwarf crab, elbow crab, graceful kelp crab, hairy crab, hairy rock crab, kelp crab, lined shore
crab, lumpy crab, majid crab, masking crab, mole crab, moss crab, northern kelp crab, porcelain crab,
purple shore crab, red crab, red rock crab, sharp nosed crab, shore crab family, slender crab, southern
kelp crab, spider crab, striped shore crab, thickclaw porcelain crab, yellow crab, yellow shore crab,
and other commercial crabs not identified to species.
Sources: Carroll, 1982; Tenera Environmental Services, 2000a; University of Washington, 2000;
andLeetetal, 2001.
APP. Bl-19
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Megalopae
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
'Age 6+
Bl-24: Other Commercial Crabs Life
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0
7.99
2.31
2.43
2.43
2.43
1.82
1.82
1.82
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.61
0.61
0.61
History Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
2.'
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000153
0.0000192
0.000134
0.289
0.654
1.26
1.97
2.55
3.00
a. Includes brown rock crab, European green crab, hairy rock crab, hermit crab, lined shore crab, mud
crab, Pacific sand crab, pea crab, pebble crab, porcelain crab, red crab, red rock crab, shore crab,
slender crab, slender rock crab, spider crab, stone crab, yellow crab, yellow rock crab, yellow shore
crab, and other commercial crabs not identified to species.
Sources: Carroll, 1982; Tenera Environmental Services, 2000a, 2001; University of Washington,
2000; andLeetetal, 2001.
APP. Bl-20
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table Bl-25: Pacific Herring Life History Parameters
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Stage Name (M)
Eggs
Larvae 6 mm
Larvae 7 mm
Larvae 8 mm
Larvae 9 mm
Larvae 10 mm
Larvae 1 1 mm
Larvae 12 mm
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
2.30
1.44
0.703
0.609
0.537
0.481
0.435
0.397
0.693
0.473
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000164
0.00000182
0.00000299
0.00000461
0.00000675
0.00000948
0.0000129
0.0000171
0.00161
0.243
0.351
0.388
0.410
0.434
0.450
0.472
0.485
Sources: Ecological Analysts, 198Ib; Lassuy, 1989;
1997; Tenera Environmental Services, 2001; Froese
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
andPauly, 2002, 2003; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table Bl-26: Rockfish Life History
Stage Name
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.00
1.00
0.215
0.215
0.261
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
Parameters3
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000181
0.00760
0.0444
0.150
0.308
0.458
0.689
0.878
1.05
1.21
1.34
1.46
1.55
1.63
App. Bl-21
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table Bl-26: Rockfish Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age 21+
Age 22+
Age 23+
Age 24+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
1.70
1.75
1.80
1.83
1.86
1.88
1.90
1.92
1.93
1.94
1.95
1.95
a. Includes aurora rockfish, black and yellow rockfish, black rockfish, blue rockfish, bocaccio, brown
rockfish, calico rockfish, chilipepper, copper rockfish, flag rockfish, gopher rockfish, grass rockfish,
kelp rockfish, olive rockfish, shortbelly rockfish, treefish, vermilion rockfish, yellowtail rockfish, and
other rockfish not identified to species.
Sources: Russell and Hanson, 1990; Cailliet, 2000; Froese and Binohlan, 2000; Leet et al, 2001;
and Tenera Environmental Services, 2001..
Table Bl-27: Sacramento Splittail Life
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Sources: Daniels
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
11.3
0.916
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
History Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000352
0.0000140
0.00103
0.0683
0.252
0.480
0.704
1.05
andMoyle, 1983; CDWR, 1994; and Froese andPauly, 2001.
App. Bl-22
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table Bl-28: Salmon Life History Parameters
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
Name (M) (F)
2.30 0
5.04 0
0.916 0
0.160 0.16
0.160 0.16
0.160 0.16
0.160 0.16
0.160 0.16
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Sources: Beauchamp et al, 1983; Allen and Hassler, 1986; Wang, 1986; Froese
and California Department of Fish and Game, 2003.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000317
0.000349
0.199
0.397
4.50
12.2
23.8
33.8
andPauly, 2001;
Table Bl-29: Sculpins Life History Parameters3
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
3.79
0.916
0.420
0.420
0.420
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.50
0.50
0.50
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000338
0.00000371
0.0120
0.0400
0.104
0.219
a. Includes bonehead sculpin, brown Irish lord, buffalo sculpin, coralline sculpin, fluffy sculpin,
manacled sculpin, Pacific staghorn sculpin, prickly sculpin, rosy sculpin, roughcheek sculpin,
roughneck sculpin, smoothhead sculpin, snubnose sculpin, spotted scorpionfish, staghorn sculpin,
tidepool sculpin, woolly sculpin, and other sculpins not identified to species.
Sources: Cailliet, 2000; Leet et al, 2001; Froese andPauly, 2002; and personal communication with
Y. DeReynier (NMFS, November 19, 2002).
App. Bl-23
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table Bl-30: Silversides Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.669
7.99
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight (Ibs)
0.00000924
0.0000528
0.000472
0.0207
0.106
0.166
0.246
0.349
0.476
0.632
0.818
1.04
1.30
1.59
a. Includes California grunion, jacksmelt, topsmelt, and other silversides not identified to species.
Sources: Wang, 1986; Cailliet, 2000; LeetetaL, 2001; Froese andPauly, 2002; andNMFS, 2003a.
Stage Name
Eggs
Table Bl-31:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.90
Smelts Life History
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
Parameters"
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000154
Larvae
7.99
0.000389
Juvenile
0.740
0.15
0.50
0.00520
Age 1+
0.740
0.15
1.0
0.0364
Age 2+
0.740
0.15
1.0
0.147
Age 3+
0.740
0.15
1.0
0.393
Age 4+
0.740
0.15
1.0
0.738
Age 5+
0.740
0.15
1.0
1.25
a. Includes night smelt, popeye smelt, surf smelt, and other smelts not identified to species.
Sources: Dryfoos, 1965; Buckley, 1989; Cailliet, 2000; Leet et al, 2001; and Froese andPauly,
2002.
APP. Bl-24
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table Bl-32: Steelhead Life History Parameters
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Sources:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Name (M)
2.30
5.04
0.916
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
Beauchamp et al, 1983; Wang,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000317
0.000349
0.199
0.397
4.50
12.2
23.8
33.8
37.9
40.1
41.9
43.0
1986; andFroese andPauly, 2001.
App. Bl-25
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table Bl-33: Striped Bass Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae 5 to 6 mm
Larvae 7 to 10 mm
Larvae 11 to 14 mm
Larvae 15 to 18 mm
Larvae 19 mm
Larvae 20 to 24 mm
Larvae 25 to 29 mm
Larvae 30 to 34 mm
Larvae 35 to 39 mm
Larvae 40 to 44 mm
Larvae 45 to 49 mm
Larvae 5 1 to 75 mm
Larvae 76 to 100 mm
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.50
1.00
2.01
0.939
0.651
0.0610
0.312
0.286
0.334
0.375
0.441
0.904
0.700
0.350
0.916
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
Parameters 1
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.06
0.20
0.63
0.94
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000416
0.0000457
0.0000503
0.0000553
0.0000898
0.000135
0.000207
0.000397
0.000616
0.000977
0.00136
0.00194
0.00421
0.0105
0.0174
0.100
0.500
2.30
4.30
6.00
8.50
11.8
13.8
16.0
Sources: Setzler etal., 1980; Ecological Analysts, 198 Ib; PSE&G, 1999; California Department of
Fish and Game, 2000a; Froese andPauly, 2001; andLeet et al, 2001.
App. Bl-26
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table Bl-34: Striped Bass Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Sources: Setzler
Fish and Game,
Parameters 2
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(M) (F) Fishery
1.50
7.44
0.916
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
0
0
0
0
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0
0
0
0
0.06
0.20
0.63
0.94
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000416
0.0000457
0.0174
0.100
0.500
2.30
4.30
6.00
8.50
11.8
13.8
16.0
etal, 1980; Ecological Analysts, 1981b; PSE&G, 1999; California Department of
2000a; Froese andPauly, 2001; andLeet et al, 2001.
Stage Name
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Table Bl-35:
Surfperches Life History
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
(M) (F)
0.560
0.280
0.280
0.280
0.280
0.280
0.280
0
0
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
Parameters"
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00443
0.0429
0.125
0.203
0.261
0.300
0.324
a Includes barred surfperch, black surfperch, calico surfperch, dwarf surfperch, island surfperch, kelp
surfperch, pile surfperch, pink seaperch, rainbow surfperch, rubberlip surfperch, shiner surfperch,
silver surfperch, spotfm surfperch, striped surfperch, walleye surfperch, white seaperch, and other
surfperches not identified to species.
Sources: Cailliet, 2000; Froese and Binohlan, 2000; Leet et al, 2001; and Froese andPauly, 2002.
App. Bl-27
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table Bl-36: Other Commercial Species Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.08
5.71
2.85
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
a. See Table Bl-40 for a list of species.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbinet al, 1983; Ruppert et al, 1985; Able andFahay, 1998; PSE&G,
1999; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; andASMFC, 200Ib.
Table Bl-37: Other Recreational Species Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.08
5.71
2.85
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
a. See Table B1-41 for a list of species.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbinet al, 1983; Ruppert et al, 1985; Able and Fahay, 1998; PSE&G,
1999; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; andASMFC, 200 Ib.
App. Bl-28
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table Bl-38:
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolk-sac larvae
Post yolk-sac larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Other Recreational
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.08
2.85
2.85
1.43
1.43
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
and Commercial
Species Life History
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Parameters"
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.000000728
0.00000335
0.000746
0.0472
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
a. Includes barracuda, California sheephead, jack mackerel, lingcod, piked dogfish, and spiny dogfish.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbinet al, 1983; Ruppertet al, 1985; Able andFahay, 1998; PSE&G, 1999;
Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; andASMFC, 200Ib.
Table Bl-39: Other Forage Species Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
(M) (F)
1.04
7.70
1.29
1.62
1.62
1.62
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000186
0.00000158
0.000481
0.00381
0.00496
0.00505
a. See Table Bl-42 for a list of species.
Sources: Derickson and Price, 1973; and PSE&G, 1999.
Table Bl-40: Other Commercial Species"
Basketweave cusk-eel
California moray
Catalina conger
Leopard shark
Monkeyface eel
Monkeyface prickleback
Moray eel
Pacific hagfish
Pacific hake
Pricklebreast poacher
Ribbon prickleback
Rock prickleback
Spotted cusk-eel
Yellow snake-eel
a. Includes other organisms not identified to species.
App. Bl-29
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table Bl-41: Other Recreational Species"
Angel shark
Chub mackerel
Pacific angel shark Round stingray
Bat ray
Diamond stingray
Pacific bonito
Senorita
Big skate
Gray smoothhound
Pacific bumper
Sevengill shark
Black skate
Halfmoon
Pacific electric ray Soupfin shark
Broadnose sevengill shark Horn shark
Pacific mackerel Striped mullet
Brown smoothhound
Kelp greenling
Pacific moonfish
Swell shark
California butterfly ray
Mexican scad
Pacific pompano Thornback ray
California electric ray
Monterey Spanish mackerel Painted greenling
California ray
Opaleye
Rock wrasse
Includes other organisms not identified to species.
Table Bl-42: Other Forage Species8
Barcheek pipefish
Finescale triggerfish
Ocean sunfish
Sea porcupine
Bay pipefish
Flathead mullet
Ocean whitefish
Sharksucker
Bigscale goatfish
Fringehead
Onespot fringehead Shovelnose guitarfish
Bigscale logperch
Garibaldi
Pacific butterfish Slimy snailfish
Black bullhead
Giant kelpfish
Pacific cornetfish Smalleye squaretail
Blacksmith
Grunt
Pacific cutlassfish Snailfishes
Blue lanternfish
Gunnels
Pacific lamprey
Snubnose pipefish
Broadfin lampfish
Hatchet fish
Pacific sand lance Southern poacher
Bullseye puffer
High cockscomb
Penpoint gunnel Southern spearnose poacher
California clingfish
Hitch
Pipefishes
Specklefin midshipman
California flyingfish Island kelpfish
Plainfin midshipman Spotted kelpfish
California killifish
Kelp gunnel
Pygmy poacher
Spotted ratfish
California lizardfish Kelp pipefish
Ratfish
Squid
California needlefish Kelpfish
Red brotula
Stickleback
California tonguefish Lampfish
Reef finspot
Striped kelpfish
Californian needlefish Lanternfish
Ribbonfish
Sunfish family
Catfish family
Longfin lanternfish
Rockweed gunnel Thornback
Clingfishes
Longspine combfish
Ronquils
Threespine stickleback
Clinids
Medusafish
Saddleback gunnel Tubesnout
Codfishes
Mexican lampfish
Salema
White catfish
Combfish
Northern clingfish
Sarcastic fringehead Zebra perch
Cortez angelfish
Northern lampfish
Sargo
Crevice kelpfish
Northern spearnose poacher Scarlet kelpfish
Includes other organisms not identified to species.
App. Bl-30
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Chapter B2
Chapter B2: Evaluation of Impingement and
Entrainment in California
Chapter Contents
B2-1
B2-2
B2-3
B2-4
B2-5
I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated B2-2
I&E Data Evaluated B2-3
EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III
Facilities in California Expressed as Age-1
Equivalents and Foregone Yield B2-4
Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities
in the California Region Under Alternative
Options B2-6
Assumptions Used in Calculating
Recreational and Commercial Losses B2-7
Background: California Marine Fisheries
California marine fisheries are managed by the
Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC),
which governs commercial and recreational fisheries
in Federal waters from 3 to 200 nautical miles off
the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California
(PFMC, 2003a). The individual states control waters
within three miles. NOAA Fisheries (formerly the
National Marine Fisheries Service) Northwest
Fisheries Science Center provides scientific and
technical support for management, conservation,
and fisheries development for Northern California.
The Southwest Fisheries Science Center provides
support for Southern California.
There are 83 species of groundfish included under PFMC's Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, including
nearly 50 species of rockfish (Sebastes spp.) (Table 3 in NMFS, 2002a). The midwater trawl fishery for Pacific
whiting (Merluccius productus) dominates the commercial fishery, accounting for 78% of Pacific Coast landings
(NMFS, 1999a). Important deepwater trawl fisheries also exist for sablefish, Dover sole, and thornyheads. During
the 1990s a major fishery developed for nearshore species, including rockfishes, cabezon, and sheephead (Leet
et al., 2001). Rockfishes are important for both commercial and recreational fisheries (NMFS, 1999a). In 1994, a
limited entry program was implemented for the groundfish fishery because of concerns about overfishing (NMFS,
1999a). Most major Pacific Coast groundfishes are now fully harvested, and catches have recently been controlled
by quotas and trip limits (PFMC, ,2003c).
Pacific Coast pelagic species managed by the PFMC include Pacific mackerel (Scomber japonicus), jack
mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), and
California market squid (Loligo opalescens) (NMFS, 2002a). These species typically fluctuate widely in
abundance, and currently most stocks are low relative to historical levels (NMFS, 1999a). Pacific mackerel and
Pacific sardine are not overfished, but the stock size of the other species governed by the Coastal Pelagic FMP is
unknown (Table 3 in NMFS, 2002a). Because of increases in abundance in recent years, Pacific mackerel now
accounts for over half of recent landings of Pacific Coast pelagic species (NMFS, 1999a). At times, Pacific
sardine has been the most abundant fish species in the California current. When the population is large, it is
abundant from the tip of Baja California to southeastern Alaska (PFMC, .2003b).
Five species of anadromous Pacific salmon support coastal and freshwater commercial and recreational fisheries
along the Pacific Coast, including chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (O. kisutch), sockeye (O. nerka),
pink (O. gorbuschd), and chum (O. ketd) salmon (NMFS, 1999a). The Sacramento River is a major producer of
chinook salmon in California. Since 1991, NOAA Fisheries has listed 20 Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs).1
1 An Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) is a term introduced by NOAA Fisheries in 1991 to refer to the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) interpretation of "distinct population segment." A stock must satisfy two criteria to be
considered an ESU: (1) "it must be substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific population units," and
(2) "it must represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species."
B2-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Chapter B2
of Pacific Coast salmon and steelhead trout (O. mykiss) under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (NMFS,
1999b). In NOAA Fisheries Northern California region, listed species include steelhead, coho salmon, and
chinook salmon of the central California Coast, and steelhead and chinook salmon of California's Central Valley.
Ocean fisheries for chinook and coho salmon are managed by the PFMC under the Pacific Coast Salmon FMP. In
Puget Sound and the Columbia River, chinook and coho fisheries are managed by the States and Tribal fishery
agencies. Declines in chinook and coho salmon along the coast have led to reductions and closures of ocean
fisheries in recent years (NMFS, 1999a).
The Pacific Salmon FMP contains no fishery management objectives for sockeye, chum, even-year pink, and
steelhead stocks because fishery impacts are considered inconsequential (Table 3 in NMFS, 2002a). Pink, chum,
and sockeye salmon are managed jointly by the Pacific Salmon Commission, Washington State, and Tribal
agencies (NMFS, 1999a).
Pacific Coast shellfish resources are important both commercially and recreationally (NMFS, 1999a). Shrimps,
crabs, abalones, and clams command high prices and contribute substantially to the value of Pacific Coast
fisheries, even though landings are small.
B2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated
Table B2-1 provides a list of species/species groups in California that are impinged and entrained at cooling water
intake structures. The life history data used in EPA's analysis and associated data sources are provided in
Appendix B1. Copies of the facility studies used in EPA's analysis are provided in the 316(b) docket.
Table B2-1: Species/Species Groups Evaluated by EPA that are Subject to I&E in California
Species/Species Group
American shad
Anchovies
Blennies
Cabezon
California halibut
California scorpionfish
Chinook salmon
Commercial crabs
Commercial sea basses
Commercial shrimp
Commercial shrimp
Delta smelt
Drums and croakers
Dungeness
Flounders
Forage shrimp
Gobies
Herrings
Longfin smelt
Recreational Commercial
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
Forage Special Status"
X
X X (FT, ST, FE, SE, FCT)
X X (FT, ST)
X
X
X
X X (SOC)
B2-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Chapter B2
Table B2-1: Species/Species
Species/Species Group
Northern anchovy
Other (commercial)
Other (forage)
Other (recreational and commercial)
Other (recreational)
Pacific herring
Recreational sea basses
Rockfishes
Sacramento splittail
Salmon
Sculpins
Silversides
Smelts
Steelhead
Striped bass
Surfperches
a. FT = Federally listed as threatened.
ST = State listed as threatened.
FE = Federally listed as endangered.
SE = State listed as endangered.
FCT = Federal candidate for listing as
SOC = Species of concern.
Groups Evaluated by EPA that
Recreational Commercial
X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
threatened.
are Subject to I&E in California
Forage Special Status"
X
X
X X (FT)
X
X X (FT)
B2-2 I&E Data Evaluated
Table B2-2 lists the facility impingement and entrainment (I&E) data evaluated by EPA to estimate I&E losses at
Phase III facilities in California. None of the Phase III facilities in California have conducted I&E studies, so it
was necessary to estimate I&E rates at these facilities by extrapolation from Phase II facility studies. See
Chapter Al of Part A for a discussion of extrapolation methods. Facility studies used in EPA's analysis are
provided in the 316(b) docket.
Table B2-2: Phase II Facility I&E Data Evaluated for California Analysis
Facility Years of Data
Contra Costa 1978-1992
Diablo Canyon Nuclear 1985-1998
El Segundo 1990-2001
Encina 1979
Harbor 1979
Haynes 1979-2001
Humboldt Bay 1980
B2-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Chapter B2
Table B2-2: Phase II Facility I&E Data Evaluated for California Analysis
Facility Years of Data
Hunter's Point 1978
Huntington Beach 1979-2001
Mandalay 2001
Morro Bay 2000
Moss Landing 1979-1999
Ormond Beach 1979-2001
Pittsburg 1978-1992
Potrero 1978-2001
AES Redondo Beach 1979-2001
San Onofre Nuclear 1979-2001
Scattergood 1990-2002
B2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III Facilities in California Expressed as Age-1
Equivalents and Foregone Yield
Table B2-3 provides EPA's estimates of the annual age-1 equivalents and foregone fishery yield resulting from
the impingement of aquatic species at Phase III facilities in California. Table B2-4 displays this information for
entrainment. Note that in these tables, "total yield" includes direct losses of harvested species and the yield of
harvested species that is lost due to losses of forage species (trophic transfer).
Table B2-3: Estimated Current Annual Impingement at Phase III Facilities
in California Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Age-1
Equivalents (#s)
Total Yield
(Ibs)
American shad <1 <1
Anchovies
Blennies
Cabezon
California halibut
California scorpionfish
12,300
15
3
21
9
20
<1
6
78
6
Chinook salmon <1 <1
Crabs (commercial)
Delta smelt
Drums and croakers
Dungeness
Flounders
Gobies
Herrings
Longfin smelt
1
4
1,630
14
397
109
1,950
38
<1
<1
95
6
38
<1
<1
<1
Northern anchovy <1 <1
B2-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Chapter B2
Table B2-3: Estimated Current Annual Impingement at Phase III Facilities
in California Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Age-1
Equivalents (#s)
Total Yield
(Ibs)
Other (commercial)
1
Other (forage)
1,740
Other (recreational and commercial)
34
Other (recreational)
75
15
Pacific herring
Rockfishes
576
139
Sacramento splittail
Salmon
Sculpins
527
21
Sea basses (commercial)
Sea basses (recreational)
37
Shrimp (commercial)
278
Shrimp (forage)
10
Silversides
3,290
Smelts
212
Steelhead
Striped bass
247
215
Surfperches
4,100
267
Trophic transfer3
32
a. Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
Table B2-4: Estimated Current Annual Entrainment at Phase III Facilities
in California Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Age-1
Equivalents
(#s)
Total Yield
(Ibs)
American shad <1 <1
Anchovies
Blennies
Cabezon
California halibut
1,480
467,000
3,470
4,040
2
<1
5,890
15,200
California scorpionfish <1 <1
Chinook salmon <1 <1
Crabs (commercial)
Delta smelt
Drums and croakers
Dungeness
Flounders
127,000
1
18,600
446
864
26
<1
1,090
206
83
B2-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Chapter B2
Table B2-4: Estimated Current Annual Entrainment at Phase III Facilities
in California Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Gobies
Herrings
Age-1
Equivalents
(#s)
97,900
16,400
Total Yield
(Ibs)
<1
<1
Longfin smelt <1 <1
Northern anchovy <1 <1
Other (commercial)
Other (forage)
306
369,000
60
<1
Other (recreational and commercial) <1 <1
Other (recreational)
Pacific herring
Rockfishes
42
200
372,000
8
<1
89,700
Sacramento splittail <1 <1
Salmon <1 <1
Sculpins
25,300
1,000
Sea basses (commercial) <1 <1
Sea basses (recreational)
Shrimp (commercial)
Shrimp (forage)
Silversides
Smelts
26,400
36,800
116,000
108
12
6,500
1
<1
<1
<1
Steelhead <1 <1
Striped bass
62
54
Surfperches <1 <1
Trophic transfer3
a Contribution of forage fish to yield based
<1
on trophic transfer
244
(see Chapter Al).
B2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities in the California Region Under
Alternative Options
Table B2-5 presents estimated reductions in I&E under the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the
"200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, and the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies" option. Reductions under
all other options are presented in Appendix B2.
Table B2-5: Estimated Reductions in I&E Under Three Alternative Options
Age-One Equivalents Foregone Fishery Yield
Option (#s) (Ibs)
50 MGD All Option 474,000 33,400
200 MGD All Option 0 0
100 MGD Option 0 0
B2-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Chapter B2
B2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating Recreational and Commercial Losses
The lost yield estimates presented in Tables B2-3 and B2-4 are expressed as total pounds and include losses to
both commercial and recreational catch. To estimate the economic value of these losses, total yield was
partitioned between commercial and recreational fisheries based on the landings in each fishery. Table B2-6
presents the percentage impacts assumed for each species/species group.
Table B2-6: Percentage of Total Impacts Occurring to the Commercial and
Recreational Fisheries as a Result of I&E at Phase III Facilities
Percent Impact to Percent Impact to
Species/Species Group Recreational Fisherya'b Commercial Fisherya'b
American shad 0.0% 100.0%
Anchovies 0.0% 100.0%
Cabezon 45.9% 54.1%
California halibut 85.6% 14.4%
California scorpionfish 83.7% 16.3%
Crabs (commercial) 0.0% 100.0%
Sea basses (commercial) 0.0% 100.0%
Shrimp (commercial) 0.0% 100.0%
Drums and croakers 69.1% 30.9%
Dungeness 0.0% 100.0%
Flounders 1.0% 99.0%
Northern anchovy 0.0% 100.0%
Other (commercial) 0.0% 100.0%
Other (recreational) 100.0% 0.0%
Other (recreational and commercial) 50.0% 50.0%
Sea basses (recreational) 100.0% 0.0%
Rockfishes 23.6% 76.4%
Salmon 100.0% 0.0%
Sculpins 85.0% 15.0%
Smelts 6.2% 93.8%
Striped bass 100.0% 0.0%
Surfperches 93.0% 7.0%
Trophic transfer' 44.0% 56.0%
a Based on landings from 1993 to 2001.
b Calculated using recreational landings data from NMFS (2003b,
http://www.st.nmfs.gov/recreational/queries/catch/snapshot.html.) and commercial landings
data from NMFS (2003a,
http://www.st.nmfs.gov/commercial/landings/annual landings.html.).
0 Assumed equally likely to be caught by recreational or commercial fishers. Commercial
value calculated as overall average for region based on data from NMFS (2003a).
See Chapter B3 for results of the commercial fishing benefits analysis and Chapter B4 for recreational fishing
results. As discussed in Chapter A8, benefits were discounted to account for (1) the time to achieve compliance
once a Phase III final regulation for existing facilities would have become effective, and (2) the time it takes for
fish spared from I&E to reach a harvestable age.
B2-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B2
Appendix B2: Reductions in I&E Under
Supplemental Policy Options
Table B2-1: Estimated Reductions in I&E in the
California Region Under Eight Supplemental Options
Option
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
Foregone Fishery Yield
(Ibs)
I-only Everywhere
I&E like Phase II
I&E Everywhere
I-only Everywhere
I&E like Phase II
I&E Everywhere
I-only Everywhere
I&E Everywhere
Electric Generators 2-50 MGD
0
0
0
Manufacturers 2-50 MGD
10,300
481,000
534,000
Manufacturers 50+ MGD
10,200
474,000
0
0
0
358
33,900
37,700
353
33,400
For additional information on the options, please see the TDD.
App. B2-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Chapter B3
Chapter B3: Commercial Fishing Benefits
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the commercial
fishing benefits analysis for the California region. The
chapter presents EPA's estimates of baseline
(i.e., current) annual commercial fishery losses from
impingement and entrainment (I&E) at potentially
regulated facilities in the California region and annual
reductions in these losses under the regulatory
analysis options for Phase III existing facilities.1.:
>• the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option,
»• the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option,
and
» the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies"
option.
Chapter Contents
B3-1 Baseline Commercial Losses B3-1
B3-2 Expected Benefits Under Regulatory
Analysis Options B3-3
B3-2.1 Commercial Fishing Benefits of
the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies"
Option B3-3
B3-2.2 Commercial Fishing Benefits of
the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies"
Option B3-4
B3-2.3 Commercial Fishing Benefits of
the "100 MOD for Certain
Waterbodies" Option B3-4
The chapter then presents the estimated benefits to commercial fisheries from eliminating baseline losses from
I&E, and the expected benefits under the regulatory analysis options. Results for the California region include
commercial benefits from both Northern and Southern California.
Chapter A4, "Methods for Estimating Commercial Fishing Benefits," details the methods used by EPA to
estimate the commercial fishing benefits of reducing and eliminating I&E losses.
EPA considered a wide range of policy options in developing this regulation. In addition to the regulatory analysis
options, EPA evaluated 8 supplemental options. Appendix B3 presents results of the commercial fishing benefits
analysis for the supplemental options.
B3-1 Baseline Commercial Losses
Table B3-1 provides EPA's estimate of the value of gross revenues lost in commercial fisheries resulting from the
impingement of aquatic species at facilities in the California region. Table B3-2 displays this information for
entrainment. Total annualized revenue losses are approximately $57,679 (undiscounted).
1 See the Introduction to this report for a description of the regulatory analysis options.
B3-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Chapter B3
Table B3-1: Annualized Commercial Fishing Gross Revenues Lost due
to Impingement at Facilities in the California Region
Species"
Anchovies
Cabezon
California halibut
California scorpionfish
Drums and croakers
Dungeness
Flounders
Otherb
Rockfishes
Sculpins
Smelts
Surfperches
Trophic transfer0
Total
Estimated
Pounds of
Harvest Lost
20
3
11
1
29
6
38
3
106
3
5
19
18
262
Commercial
Value per
Pound
(2004$)
$0.06
$3.88
$2.79
$1.92
$1.06
$1.76
$0.40
$0.56
$0.55
$2.68
$0.28
$1.68
$0.92
Estimated Value
of Harvest Lost
(2004$)
Undiscounted
$1
$12
$32
$2
$31
$11
$15
$2
$58
$8
$1
$31
$16
$220
a. Species included are only those that have baseline losses greater than $1.
b Includes only species that are commercially, but not recreationally, fished.
°. Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter
Al).
Table B3-2: Annualized Commercial Fishing Gross Revenues Lost due
to Entrainment at Facilities in the California Region
Species"
Cabezon
California halibut
Commercial crabs
Commercial shrimp
Drums and croakers
Dungeness crab
Flounders
Otherb
Rockfishes
Sculpins
Trophic transfer0
Total
Estimated
Pounds of
Harvest Lost
3,188
2,195
26
1
335
206
82
60
68,486
150
137
78,866
Commercial
Value per
Pound
(2004$)
$3.88
$2.79
$1.21
$1.04
$1.06
$1.76
$0.40
$0.56
$0.55
$2.68
$0.92
Estimated Value
of Harvest Lost
(2004$)
Undiscounted
$12,369
$6,135
$31
$1
$355
$362
$33
$34
$37,607
$402
$125
$57,454
a. Species included are only those that have baseline losses greater than $1.
b Includes only species that are commercially, but not recreationally, fished.
0 Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter
B3-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Chapter B3
Table B3-2: Annualized Commercial Fishing Gross Revenues Lost due
to Entrainment at Facilities in the California Region
Species"
Estimated
Pounds of
Harvest Lost
Commercial
Value per
Pound
(2004$)
Estimated Value
of Harvest Lost
(2004$)
Undiscounted
Al).
B3-2 Expected Benefits Under Regulatory Analysis Options
As described in Chapter A4, EPA estimates for California that, depending on species, 0 to 74% of the gross
revenue losses represent surplus losses to producers, assuming no change in prices or fishing costs. Earlier EPA
analysis assumed a rate of 40%. The 0% estimate, of course, results in loss estimates of $0.
The expected reductions in I&E attributable to changes at facilities required by the "50 MGD for All
Waterbodies" option (50 MGD All option) are 36.8% for impingement and 27.6% for entrainment. The
"200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option (200 MGD All option) and the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies"
option (100 MGD CWB option) do not prevent any losses in the California region. Total annualized benefits are
estimated by applying these estimated reductions to the annual baseline producer surplus loss. As presented in
Table B3-3, this results in total annualized benefits of up to approximately $8,190 for the 50 MGD All option,
assuming a 3% discount rate and a species specific net benefits ratio.-2.
B3-2.1 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table B3-3 shows EPA's analysis of the commercial benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option for the
California region. The table shows that this option, assuming a species-specific net benefits ratio, will result in
undiscounted total annualized commercial benefits of approximately $9,504. When evaluated at 3% and
7% discount rates, the annualized commercial benefits are $8,190 and $6,772, respectively.
Table B3-3: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to
the 50 MGD All Option at Facilities in the California Region (2004$)."
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost — 0%
$223
$0
$57,456
$0
$57,679
$0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $122 $34,308 $34,429
Expected reduction due to rule 36.8% 27.6%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $9,504
3% discount rate $8,190
7% discount rate $6,772
2. The net benefits ratio is the fractional share of gross revenue associated with net benefits, by gear and vessel
type. See Chapter A4, section A4-10, for a description of the species-specific net benefits ratios and how they are
calculated.
B3-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Chapter B3
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter II for a timeline of benefits.
B3-2.2 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
No facilities located in the California region have design intake flows greater than 200 MGD, so no facilities
would have technology requirements under the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option. Thus, no commercial
benefits are expected under this option in the California region.
B3-2.3 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
No facilities located in the California region have design intake flows greater than 100 MGD, so no facilities
would have technology requirements under the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option. Thus, no commercial
benefits are expected under this option in the California region.
B3-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Appendix B3
Appendix B3: Commercial Fishing Benefits
Under Supplemental Policy Options
Introduction
Appendix Contents
Chapter B3 presents EPA's estimates of the
B3-1 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the
Supplemental Options B3-1
commercial benefits of the regulatory options for the
section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities in the
California region. To facilitate comparisons among
the options, this appendix presents estimates of the
commercial fishing benefits of several supplemental options that EPA evaluated in preparation for this rule:
*• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option;
» "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option;
>• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option;
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option;
•> "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option;
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option;
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere" option; and
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I&E Everywhere" option.
Commercial fishing benefits presented in this chapter were estimated using the benefit transfer approach
discussed in Chapter B3 and in Chapter A4, "Methods for Estimating Commercial Fishing Benefits."
B3-1 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the Supplemental Options
No facilities located in the California region are electric generators with design intake flows greater than 2 MGD
and less than 50 MGD, so no facilities would have technology requirements under the "Electric Generators 2-50
MGD I-only Everywhere" option, the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option, or the "Electric
Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option. Thus no commercial benefits are expected under these options
in the California region. For additional information on the options, please see the TDD.
Tables B3-1 through B3-5 present EPA's estimates of the annualized commercial benefits of the remaining
supplemental options in the California region.
App. B3-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Appendix B3
Table B3-1: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
"Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" Option at Facilities in the
California Region (2004$)a
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $223 $57,456 $57,679
Producer surplus lost — 0% $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $122 $34,308 $34,429
Expected reduction due to rule 37% 0%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $45
3% discount rate $36
7% discount rate $26
a. Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter II for a timeline of benefits.
Table B3-2: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
"Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" Option at Facilities in the
California Region (2004$)a
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $223 $57,456 $57,679
Producer surplus lost —0% $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $122 $34,308 $34,429
Expected reduction due to rule 37% 28%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $9,638
3% discount rate $7,602
7% discount rate $5,606
a. Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter II for a timeline of benefits.
App. B3-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Appendix B3
Table B3-3: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
"Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" Option at Facilities in the
California Region (2004$)a
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $223 $57,456 $57,679
Producer surplus lost — 0% $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $122 $34,308 $34,429
Expected reduction due to rule 37% 31%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $10,720
3% discount rate $8,455
7% discount rate $6,236
a. Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter II for a timeline of benefits.
Table B3-4: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
"Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere" Option at Facilities in the
California Region (2004$)a
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $223 $57,456 $57,679
Producer surplus lost —0% $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $122 $34,308 $34,429
Expected reduction due to rule 37% 0%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $45
3% discount rate $39
7% discount rate $32
a. Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter II for a timeline of benefits.
App. B3-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Appendix B3
Table B3-5: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
"Manufacturers 50+ MGD I&E Everywhere" Option at Facilities in the
California Region (2004$)a
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $223 $57,456 $57,679
Producer surplus lost — 0% $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $122 $34,308 $34,429
Expected reduction due to rule 37% 28%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $9,504
3% discount rate $8,190
7% discount rate $6,772
a. Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter II for a timeline of benefits.
App. B3-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Chapter B4
Chapter B4: Recreational Use Benefits
Chapter Contents
B4-1
B4-2
B4-3
B4-4
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the recreational
fishing benefits analysis for the California region.
The chapter presents EPA's estimates of baseline
(i.e., current) annual recreational fishery losses
from impingement and entrainment (I&E) at
potentially regulated facilities in the California
region and annual reductions in these losses under
the regulatory analysis options for Phase III
existing facilities-1.:
>• the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option,
•> the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies"
option, and
» the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies"
option.
The chapter then presents the estimated welfare
gain to California anglers from eliminating baseline
recreational fishing losses from I&E and the
expected benefits under the regulatory analysis
options.
EPA estimated the recreational benefits of reducing and eliminating I&E losses using a benefit transfer
methodology based on a meta-analysis of the marginal value of catching different species offish. This meta-
analysis is discussed in detail in Chapter A5, "Recreational Fishing Benefits Methodology."
EPA considered a wide range of policy options in developing this regulation. In addition to the regulatory analysis
options, EPA evaluated 8 supplemental options. Appendix B4 presents results of the recreational fishing benefits
analysis for the supplemental options.
B4-2
Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-
Analysis B4-1
B4-1.1 Baseline Losses and Reductions in
Recreational Fishery Losses Under
the Regulatory Analysis Options....
B4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits
from Eliminating Baseline I&E
Losses
B4-1.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of
the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies"
Option
B4-1.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of
the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies"
Option B4-5
B4-1.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of
the "100 MOD for Certain
Waterbodies" Option B4-5
Limitations and Uncertainty B4-5
B4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-Analysis
EPA estimated the recreational welfare gain from the reduction in annual I&E losses expected under the policy
options, and the welfare gain from eliminating I&E at potentially regulated facilities, using a benefit transfer
approach. As discussed in Chapter A5, the Agency used a meta-analysis regression equation to estimate the
marginal recreational value per additional fish caught by anglers, for different species in different regions. Since
I&E at potentially regulated facilities affects a variety of species, EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to
one of the general species groups used in the meta-analysis. The Agency then calculated the economic value of
reducing or eliminating baseline I&E losses, for each species group, by multiplying the value per fish for that
species group by the number offish in the group that are lost in the baseline or saved under the policy options.2.
-1. See the Introduction to this report for a description of the regulatory analysis options.
The estimates of I&E presented in this chapter include only the fraction of impinged and entrained recreational
fish that would be caught by anglers. The total amount of I&E of recreational fish is actually much higher.
B4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Chapter B4
In general, the fit between the species with I&E losses and the species groups in the meta-analysis was good.
However, EPA's estimates of baseline I&E losses and reductions in I&E under the policy options included losses
of "unidentified" species. The "unidentified" group includes fish lost indirectly through trophic transfer, as well as
species for which no species information was available.3. Rather than using the meta-analysis regression to try to
predict the value per fish for an "unidentified" species, EPA assumed that per-fish values for these species can be
approximated by the weighted average value per fish for all species affected by I&E in the California region..4
B4-1.1 Baseline Losses and Reductions in Recreational Fishery Losses Under the Regulatory Analysis
Options
Table B4-1 presents EPA's estimates of baseline (i.e., current) annual recreational I&E losses at potentially
regulated facilities, and annual reductions in these losses under each of the regulatory analysis options, in the
California region. The table shows that total baseline losses to recreational fisheries are 32.8 thousand fish per
year. In comparison, the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option prevents losses of 9.2 thousand fish per year. The
"200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option and the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option do not prevent any
losses in the California region. Of all the affected species, rockfish and sculpin have the highest losses in the
baseline and the highest prevented losses under the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option.
In addition to recreational fish that are lost because they are impinged or entrained, some recreational fish are lost
because the forage fish that they feed on are impinged or entrained, and thus removed from the food chain. These
trophic transfer losses of recreational species are included in EPA's estimates of total I&E losses. Since it is difficult to
predict which recreational species would be affected by losses of forage fish, these losses are classified as
"unidentified" recreational species. Also included in the "unidentified" group are losses offish that were reported by
facilities without information about their exact species.
4 EPA used the estimated level of baseline recreational losses for each species group as a weighting factor.
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Chapter B4
Table B4-1: Baseline Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III Facilities
and Reductions in Recreational Losses under the Regulatory Analysis Options in the California Region
Species"
Baseline Annual
Recreational Fishing
Losses
(# of fish)
Annual Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses
(# of fish)
50 MGD All
200 MGD All1
100 MGD CWBb
Striped bass
Total (small game)
California halibut
Flounders
Total (flatfish)
Cabezon
California scorpionfish
Croakers
Rockfish
Sculpin
Sea bass
Smelts
Surfperch
Total (other saltwater)
Total (unidentified)
Total (all species)
31.0
31.0
670.4
2.9
673.4
420.2
2.0
2,374.3
16,727.6
6,565.4
4,774.8
0.7
1,076.2
31,941.2
147.9
32,793.5
10.8
10.8
185.2
0.9
186.1
115.9
0.7
672.3
4,614.4
1,822.4
1,317.1
0.3
395.6
8,938.7
43.7
9,179.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a. EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to one of the species groups used in the meta-analysis. The "other
saltwater" group includes bottomfish and other miscellaneous species. The "unidentified" group includes fish lost
indirectly through trophic transfer and fish reported lost without information about their species.
b No facilities located in the California region have design intake flows greater than 100 MGD. Thus, no facilities
would have technology requirements under the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" or "100 MGD for Certain
Waterbodies" options.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
B4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses
Table B4-2 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the welfare gain to recreational anglers from eliminating
baseline recreational fishery losses at potentially regulated facilities in the California region. The table presents
baseline annual recreational I&E losses, the estimated value per fish, and the monetized annual welfare gain from
eliminating recreational losses, for each species group. Total baseline recreational fishing losses for the California
region are 32.8 thousand fish per year. The undiscounted annual welfare gain to California anglers from
eliminating these losses is $85.6 thousand (2004$), with lower and upper bounds of $44.8 thousand and
$164.1 thousand. Evaluated at 3% and 7% discount rates, the mean annualized welfare gain from eliminating
these losses is $80.7 thousand and $74.8 thousand, respectively. The majority of monetized recreational losses
from I&E under baseline conditions are attributable to losses of species in the "other saltwater" group, such as
rockfish and sculpin.
B4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Chapter B4
Table B4-2: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E at Potentially Regulated
Phase III Facilities in the California Region (2004$)
Baseline Annual
Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fishb
Annualized Benefits from Eliminating
Recreational Fishing Losses
(thousands)c'd
Species Group (thousands of fish)3 Low
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (3% discount rate)d
Total (7% discount rate)d
0.0e
0.7
31.9
0.1
32.8
32.8
32.8
$3
$3
$1
$1
.34
.93
.31
.37
Mean
$6
$8
$2
$2
.11
.22
.49
.61
High
$11
$16
$4.
$5.
.16
.94
75
00
Low
$0.1
$2.6
$41.9
$0.2
$44.8
$42.2
$39.1
Mean
$0.
$5.
$79
$0.
$85
2
5
.5
4
.6
$80.7
$74
.8
High
$0.3
$11.4
$151.6
$0.7
$164.1
$154.5
$143.2
a. Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have been caught by
recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
°. Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying baseline losses by the estimated value per fish.
d Annualized values represent the total welfare gain over the time frame of the analysis from eliminating recreational
losses, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
and annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
e Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
B4-1.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table B4-3 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies"
option for the California region. The table presents the annual reduction in recreational I&E losses expected under
this option, the estimated value per fish, and annual monetized recreational welfare gain from this option, by
species group. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 9.2 thousand fish per year, resulting
in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $24.0 thousand (2004$), with lower and upper bounds
of $12.5 thousand and $45.9 thousand. Evaluated at 3% and 7% discount rates, the mean annualized welfare gain
from this reduction in recreational losses is $20.7 thousand and $17.1 thousand, respectively. The majority of
benefits result from reduced losses of species in the "other saltwater" group, such as rockfish and sculpin.
B4-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Chapter B4
Table B4-3: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
in the California Region (2004$)
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (3% discount rate)d
Total (7% discount rate)d
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)3
0.0e
0.2
8.9
0.0e
9.2
9.2
9.2
Value per Fish"
Low
$3.34
$3.93
$1.31
$1.37
Mean
$6.11
$8.22
$2.49
$2.61
High
$11.16
$16.94
$4.75
$5.00
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)0'"
Low
$0.0f
$0.7
$11.7
$0.1
$12.5
$10.8
$8.9
Mean
$0.1
$1.5
$22.3
$0.1
$24.0
$20.7
$17.1
High
$0.1
$3.2
$42.4
$0.2
$45.9
$39.6
$32.7
a Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have been caught by
recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
°. Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual reduction in recreational losses by the estimated value
per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
e Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
Denotes a positive value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
B4-1.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
No facilities located in the California region have design intake flows greater than 200 MGD, so no facilities
would have technology requirements under the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option. Thus, no recreational
benefits are expected under this option in the California region.
B4-1.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
No facilities located in the California region have design intake flows greater than 100 MGD, so no facilities
would have technology requirements under the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option. Thus, no recreational
benefits are expected under this option in the California region.
B4-2 Limitations and Uncertainty
The results of the benefit transfer based on a meta-analysis represent EPA's best estimate of the recreational
benefits of the regulatory analysis options. Nonetheless, there are a number of limitations and uncertainties
inherent in these estimates. General limitations pertaining to the development of the meta-analysis model, the use
of the model to estimate per-fish values, and the validity of the benefit transfer are discussed in section A5-3.3e
and section A5-5.3 of the recreational fishing benefits methodology chapter (A5). In addition to these general
concerns about the analysis, there are some limitations and uncertainties that are specific to the California region.
B4-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Chapter B4
The main limitation of applying the meta-analysis to the California region is that California is a large state with
varied recreational fishing resources. The species that are targeted in the northern and southern parts of the state
are somewhat different, and assigning a single value to each species based on an average for California may
introduce some error into the resulting benefit estimates.
B4-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B4
Appendix B4: Recreational Use Benefits
Under Supplemental Policy Options
Appendix Contents
B4-1
B4-2
Recreational Fishing Benefits of the
Supplemental Options B4-1
B4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in
Recreational Fishing Losses Under
the Supplemental Options B4-1
B4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits of
the Supplemental Options B4-3
Comparison of Recreational Fishing
Benefits by Option B4-6
Introduction
Chapter B4 presents EPA's estimates of the
recreational benefits of the regulatory options for the
section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities in the
California region. To facilitate comparisons among
the options, this appendix presents estimates of the
recreational fishing benefits of supplemental options
that EPA evaluated in preparation for this rule:
>• "Electric Generators 2-50 MOD I-only
Everywhere" option;
> "Electric Generators 2-50 MOD I&E like
Phase II" option;
*• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option;
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option;
> "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option;
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option;
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere" option; and
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I&E Everywhere" option.
Recreational fishing benefits presented in this chapter were estimated using the benefit transfer approach
discussed in Chapter B4 and in Chapter A5, "Recreational Fishing Benefits Methodology."
B4-1 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Supplemental Options
B4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses Under the Supplemental Options
Table B4-1 presents EPA's estimates of the annual reduction in baseline (i.e., current) recreational fishing losses
from impingement and entrainment (I&E) in the California region under the supplemental options. For additional
information on the options, please see the TDD.
App. B4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B4
Table B4-1: Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E Under the Supplemental Options in the California Region
Annual Reduction in Recreational Losses
(# of fish)
Electric Generators 2-50 MGDb
I-only
Species8 Everywhere
Striped bass
Total (small game)
California halibut
Flounders
Total (flatfish)
Cabezon
California scorpionfish
Croakers
Rockfish
Sculpin
Sea bass
Smelts
Surfperch
Total (other saltwater)
Total (generic saltwater)
Total (all species)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I&E like
Phase II
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I&E
Everywhere
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Manufacturers 2-50
I-only
Everywhere
9.2
9.2
1.3
0.3
1.6
0.2
0.7
71.6
9.6
49.9
2.5
0.3
401.3
536.0
12.0
558.8
I&E like
Phase II
11.0
11.0
187.8
0.9
188.7
117.5
0.7
681.8
4,679.7
1,848.3
1,335.7
0.3
401.3
9,065.3
44.4
9,309.3
MGD
I&E
Everywhere
11.2
11.2
208.8
1.0
209.8
130.8
0.7
750.6
5,206.3
2,051.0
1,486.1
0.3
401.3
10,027.0
48.0
10,296.0
Manufacturers 50+ MGD
I-only
Everywhere
9.1
9.1
1.3
0.3
1.6
0.2
0.7
70.6
9.5
49.2
2.5
0.3
395.6
528.5
11.8
551.0
I&E
Everywhere
10.8
10.8
185.2
0.9
186.1
115.9
0.7
672.3
4,614.4
1,822.4
1,317.1
0.3
395.6
8,938.7
43.7
9,179.3
a. EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to one of the species groups used in the meta-analysis. The "other saltwater" group includes bottomfish and other
miscellaneous species. The "unidentified" group includes fish lost indirectly through trophic transfer and fish reported lost without information about their species.
b No facilities located in the California region are electric generators with design intake flows greater than 2 MGD and less than 50 MGD. Thus no facilities would
have technology requirements under the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option, the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II"
option, or the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. B4-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B4
B4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Supplemental Options
No facilities located in California region are electric generators with design intake flows greater than 2 MOD and
less than 50 MGD, so no facilities would have technology requirements under the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD
I-only Everywhere" option, the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option, or the "Electric
Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option. Thus no recreational benefits are expected under these options in
the California region.
Tables B4-2 through B4-6 present EPA's estimates of the annualized recreational benefits of the five remaining
supplemental options in the California region.
Table B4-2: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere"
Option in the California Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
l_f _____
Species Group (thousands of fish) Low
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%
discount rate)
Total (evaluated at 7%
discount rate)
0.0d
o.od
0.5
0.0d
0.6
0.6
0.6
$3.34
$3.93
$1.31
$1.37
Mean
$6.11
$8.22
$2.49
$2.61
High
$11.16
$16.94
$4.75
$5.00
Low
$0.0e
$o.oe
$0.7
$0.0e
$0.8
$0.6
$0.4
Mean
$0.1
$o.oe
$1.3
$0.0e
$1.4
$1.1
$0.8
High
$0.1
$o.oe
$2.5
$0.1
$2.7
$2.2
$1.6
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d Denotes a non-zero value less than 50 fish.
e Denotes a non-zero value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. B4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B4
Table B4-3: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase IP
Option in the California Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fisha
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%
discount rate)c
Total (evaluated at 7%
discount rate)c
(thousands of fish)
0.0d
0.2
9.1
0.0d
9.3
9.3
9.3
Low
$3.34
$3.93
$1.31
$1.37
Mean
$6.11
$8.22
$2.49
$2.61
High
$11.16
$16.94
$4.75
$5.00
Low
$0.0e
$0.7
$11.9
$0.1
$12.7
$10.0
$7.4
Mean
$0.1
$1.6
$22.6
$0.1
$24.3
$19.2
$14.1
High
$0.1
$3.2
$43.0
$0.2
$46.6
$36.7
$27.1
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d Denotes a non-zero value less than 50 fish.
e Denotes a non-zero value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Table B4-4: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere"
Option in the California Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%
discount rate)c
Total (evaluated at 7%
discount rate)c
(thousands of fish)
0.0d
0.2
10.0
0.0d
10.3
10.3
10.3
Low
$3.34
$3.93
$1.31
$1.37
Mean
$6.11
$8.22
$2.49
$2.61
High
$11.16
$16.94
$4.75
$5.00
Low
$0.0e
$0.8
$13.1
$0.1
$14.1
$11.1
$8.2
Mean
$0.1
$1.7
$25.0
$0.1
$26.9
$21.2
$15.6
High
$0.1
$3.6
$47.6
$0.2
$51.5
$40.6
$30.0
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d Denotes a non-zero value less than 50 fish.
e Denotes a non-zero value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. B4-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B4
Table B4-5: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere'
Option in the California Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fisha
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%
discount rate)c
Total (evaluated at 7%
discount rate)c
(thousands of fish)
0.0d
o.od
0.5
0.0d
0.6
0.6
0.6
Low
$3.34
$3.93
$1.31
$1.37
Mean
$6.11
$8.22
$2.49
$2.61
High
$11.16
$16.94
$4.75
$5.00
Low
$0.0e
$o.oe
$0.7
$0.0e
$0.7
$0.6
$0.5
Mean
$0.1
$o.oe
$1.3
$0.0e
$1.4
$1.2
$1.0
High
$0.1
$o.oe
$2.5
$0.1
$2.7
$2.3
$1.9
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d Denotes a non-zero value less than 50 fish.
e Denotes a non-zero value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Table B4-6: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I&E Everywhere"
Option in the California Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%
discount rate)
Total (evaluated at 7%
discount rate)
(thousands of fish)
0.0d
0.2
8.9
0.0d
9.2
9.2
9.2
Low
$3.34
$3.93
$1.31
$1.37
Mean
$6.11
$8.22
$2.49
$2.61
High
$11.16
$16.94
$4.75
$5.00
Low
$0.0e
$0.7
$11.7
$0.1
$12.5
$10.8
$8.9
Mean
$0.1
$1.5
$22.3
$0.1
$24.0
$20.7
$17.1
High
$0.1
$3.2
$42.4
$0.2
$45.9
$39.6
$32.7
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d Denotes a non-zero value less than 50 fish.
e Denotes a non-zero value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. B4-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B4
B4-2 Comparison of Recreational Fishing Benefits by Option
Table B4-7 compares the recreational fishing benefits of the various supplemental options.
Table B4-7: Annual Recreational Benefits of the Supplemental Options in the California Region
Policy Option
Annual Reduction
in Recreational Fishing
Losses from I&E
(thousands of fish)
Undiscounted Recreational Fishing Benefits
(thousands; 2004$)a
Low
Mean
High
Electric Generators 2-50 MGDb
I-Only Everywhere
I&E Like Phase II
I&E Everywhere
0.0
0.0
0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Manufacturers 2-50 MGD
I-Only Everywhere
I&E Like Phase II
I&E Everywhere
0.6
9.3
10.3
$0.8
$12.7
$14.1
$1.4
$24.3
$26.9
$2.7
$46.6
$51.5
Manufacturers 50+ MGD
I-Only Everywhere
I&E Everywhere
0.6
9.2
$0.7
$12.5
$1.4
$24.0
$2.7
$45.9
a. These benefit estimates were calculated using the meta-analysis approach discussed in Chapter A5 and Chapter B4.
b No facilities located in the California region are electric generators with design intake flows greater than 2 MGD and
less than 50 MGD, so no facilities would have technology requirements under the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD
I-only Everywhere" option, the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option, or the "Electric Generators
2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option. Thus no recreational benefits are expected under these options in the California
region.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. B4-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Chapter B5
Chapter B5: Federally Listed T&E Species
in the California Region
This chapter lists current federally listed threatened and endangered (T&E) fish and shellfish species in the
California region. This list does not address proposed or candidate species. In addition, fish and shellfish listed as
cave species, marine mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and snails are not included in this chapter. There are
currently no federally listed fish or shellfish species for the states of Alaska and Hawaii which meet the above
criteria.
Status
E
E
T
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
T
E
T
E
T
T
T
T
E
T
T
E
Table B5-1: California Federally
Scientific Name
Branchinecta conservatio
Branchinecta longiantenna
Branchinecta lynchi
Branchinecta sandiegonensis
Catostomus microps
Catostomus santaanae
Chasmistes brevirostris
Cyprinodon macularius
Cyprinodon radiosus
Deltistes luxatus
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni
Gila bicolor mohavensis
Gila bicolor snyderi
Gila elegans
Haliotis sorenseni
Hypomesus transpacificus
Lepidurus packardi
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) kisutch
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) kisutch
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) mykiss
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) mykiss
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) mykiss
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) mykiss
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) mykiss
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) tshawytscha
Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Conservancy fairy shrimp
Longhorn fairy shrimp
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
San Diego fairy shrimp
Modoc sucker
Santa Ana sucker (3 California river basins)
Shortnose sucker
Desert pupfish
Owens pupfish
Lost River sucker
Tidewater goby
Unarmored threespine stickleback
Mohave tui chub
Owens tui chub
Bonytail chub
White abalone
Delta smelt
Vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Coho salmon (Oregon and California populations)
Coho salmon (central California coast)
Steelhead (Central Valley, California)
Steelhead (central California coast)
Steelhead (northern California)
Steelhead (south central California coast)
Steelhead (southern California coast)
Chinook salmon (California Central Valley) (spring run)
Chinook salmon (California coastal)
Chinook salmon (Sacramento River) (winter run)
B5-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Chapter B5
Table B5-1: California
Status Scientific Name
T
T
T
E
E
T
E
E
E
Source:
Oncorhynchus aguabonita whitei
Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi
Oncorhynchus clarki seleniris
Pacifastacus fortis
Ptychocheilus lucius
Salvelinus confluentus
Streptocephalus woottoni
Syncaris pacifica
Xyrauchen texanus
USFWS, 2006a.
Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Little Kern golden trout
Lahontan cutthroat trout
Paiute cutthroat trout
Shasta crayfish
Pikeminnow ( = squawfish), Colorado except Salt and
Verde River drainages, AZ
Bull trout (U.S., conterminous, lower 48 states)
Riverside fairy shrimp
California freshwater shrimp
Razorback sucker
B5-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment
Part C: North Atlantic
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Chapter Cl
Chapter Cl: Background
Cl-l Facility Characteristics Cl-1
Introduction
Chapter Contents
This chapter presents an overview of the potential
Phase III existing facilities in the North Atlantic
study region and summarizes their key cooling water
and compliance characteristics. For further
discussion of the technical and compliance characteristics of potential Phase III existing facilities, refer to the
Economic Analysis for the Final Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities and the Technical Development
Document for the Final Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2006a,c).
Cl-1 Facility Characteristics
The North Atlantic Regional Study includes four sample facilities that are potentially subject to the national
standards for Phase III existing facilities. Figure Cl-1 presents a map of these facilities. All four facilities are
manufacturing facilities. Industry-wide, these four sample facilities represent five manufacturing facilities..1.
1 EPA applied sample weights to the survey respondents to account for non-sampled facilities and facilities that did
not respond to the survey. For more information on EPA's 2000 Section 316(b) Industry Survey, please refer to the
Information Collection Request (U.S. EPA, 2000b).
Cl-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Chapter Cl
Figure Cl-1: Potential Existing Phase III Facilities in the North Atlantic Regional Study"
Potential Phase III Existing Facilities (Count)
O Electric Generating Facility (0) I^^H North Atlantic Region with Counties
* Manufacturing Facility (4)
Atlantic Ocean
0 30 60 Miles
a. The map includes locations of sample facilities only.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Cl-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Chapter Cl
Table Cl-1 summarizes key technical and compliance characteristics for all potentially regulated Phase III
existing facilities in the North Atlantic study region for the regulatory options considered by EPA for this rule (the
"50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, and the "100 MOD for
Certain Waterbodies" option). Facilities with a design intake flow below the three applicability thresholds would
be subject to permitting based on best professional judgment and are excluded from EPA's analyses.2 Therefore,
a different number of facilities is affected under each option.
Table Cl-1 shows that five Phase III existing facilities in the North Atlantic study region would potentially be
subject to the national requirements. Under the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the most inclusive of the
regulatory options, five facilities would be subject to the national requirements for Phase III existing facilities.
Under the less inclusive "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option only one facility would be subject to the nation
requirements. Three facilities are subject to the national standards under the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies"
option. No facility in the North Atlantic study region has a recirculating system in the baseline. Data on design
intake flow for the North Atlantic study facilities have been withheld due to data confidentiality reasons.
Table Cl-1: Technical and Compliance Characteristics of Existing Phase III Facilities (sample-weighted)
Total Number of Facilities (sample-weighted)
Number of Facilities with Recirculating System in Baseline
Design Intake Flow (MGD)
Number of Facilities by Compliance Response
New larger intake structure with fine mesh and fish H&R
Fine mesh traveling screens with fish H&R
Passive fine mesh screens
None
Compliance Cost, Discounted at 3%b
Compliance Cost, Discounted at 7%b
All Potentially
Regulated
Facilities
5
-
wa
2
1
1
1
$2.03
$1.97
Regulatory
Options
50 MGD 200 MGD 100 MGD
All All CWB
5
1
3
-
wa
wa
wa
2
1
1
1
$2.03
$1.97
1
$0.48
$0.44
2
1
$1.56
$1.52
a. Data withheld because of confidentiality reasons.
Annualized pre-tax compliance cost (2004$, millions).
Sources: U.S. EPA, 2000b; U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Also excluded are facilities that are estimated to be baseline closures. For additional information on EPA's
baseline closure analyses, please refer to the Economic Analysis for the Final Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III
Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2006a).
Cl-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Appendix Cl: Life History Parameter
Values Used to Evaluate I&E in the
North Atlantic Region
The tables in this appendix present the life history parameter values used by EPA to calculate age-1 equivalents
and fishery yields from impingement and entrainment (I&E) data for the North Atlantic region. Because of
differences in the number of life stages represented in the loss data, there are cases where more than one life stage
sequence was needed for a given species or species group. Alternative parameter sets were developed for this
purpose and are indicated with a number following the species or species group name (i.e., Winter flounder 1,
Winter flounder 2).
Table Cl-1: Alewife Life History
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Sources:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Name (M)
0.544
5.50
2.57
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
PG&E National Energy Group,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000128
0.00000141
0.00478
0.0443
0.139
0.264
0.386
0.489
0.568
0.626
0.667
0.696
2001; andFroese andPauly, 2003.
App. Cl-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age 21+
Age 22+
Age 23+
Age 24+
Age 25+
Sources:
O 'Brien,
Table Cl-2: American Plaice Life
History Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
Name (M) (F) Fishery
2.30 0
8.22 0
0.916 0
0.200 0
0.200 0.32
0.200 0.32
0.200 0.32
0.200 0.32
0.200 0.32
0.200 0.32
0.200 0.32
0.200 0.32
0.200 0.32
0.200 0.32
0.200 0.32
0.200 0.32
0.200 0.32
0.200 0.32
0.200 0.32
0.200 0.32
0.200 0.32
0.200 0.32
0.200 0.32
0.200 0.32
0.200 0.32
0.200 0.32
0.200 0.32
0.200 0.32
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977;
2000; Schultz, 2000; andFroese andPauly, 2001.
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Scott and Scott, 1988;
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000115
0.0000126
0.000110
0.00903
0.0871
0.190
0.328
0.494
0.711
0.986
1.24
1.53
1.86
2.24
2.68
3.17
3.52
3.91
4.32
4.77
5.24
5.75
6.28
6.86
7.46
8.11
8.44
8.55
NOAA, 1993;
App. Cl-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-3: American Sand Lance Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.41
2.97
2.90
1.89
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.720
0.720
0.720
0.720
0.720
Sources: PG&E National Energy Group,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000126
0.00000139
0.00119
0.00384
0.00730
0.0113
0.0153
0.0191
0.0225
0.0255
0.0280
0.0301
0.0319
0.0333
2001; andFroese andPauly, 2003.
Table Cl-4: American Shad Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.496
0.496
2.52
7.40
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.540
1.02
1.50
1.50
1.50
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Able and Fahay,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
1998; PSE&G, 1999;
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.45
0.90
1.0
1.0
1.0
andFroese andPauly.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.000000728
0.00000335
0.000746
0.309
1.17
2.32
3.51
4.56
5.47
6.20
6.77
, 2007.
App. Cl-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-5: Atlantic Cod Life History Parameters
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Name (M)
4.87
5.83
0.916
0.400
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
Sources: Scott and Scott, 1988; Entergy Nuclear Generation
2000; Froese andPauly, 2001, 2003; andNOAA, 2001b.
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Company, 2000; Mayo
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000567
0.00000624
0.000337
0.0225
0.245
0.628
1.29
2.45
3.33
and O 'Brien,
App. Cl-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-6: Atlantic Herring Life
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
3.36
3.26
3.26
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
History Parameters"
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000473
0.00000531
0.00126
0.0314
0.173
0.302
0.420
0.463
0.525
0.588
0.642
0.699
0.732
0.766
0.848
0.855
0.862
0.869
0.877
a. Includes Atlantic herring, hickory shad, round herring, and other herring not identified to species.
Sources: Scott and Scott, 1988; Able andFahay, 1998; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000;
ASMFC, 2001a; Froese andPauly, 2001; NOAA, 2001b; and Overholtz, 2002a.
App. Cl-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-7: Atlantic Mackerel Life History Parameters
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
Name (M) (F) Fishery
2.39 0 0
5.30 0 0
5.30 0 0
0.520 0 0
0.370 0.25 0.50
0.370 0.25 1.0
0.370 0.25 1.0
0.370 0.25 1.0
0.370 0.25 1.0
0.370 0.25 1.0
0.370 0.25 1.0
0.370 0.25 1.0
0.370 0.25 1.0
0.370 0.25 1.0
0.370 0.25 1.0
0.370 0.25 1.0
0.370 0.25 1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000176
0.00000193
0.000833
0.309
0.510
0.639
0.752
0.825
0.918
1.02
1.10
1.13
1.15
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
Sources: Scott and Scott, 1988; Overholtz et al, 1991; Studholme etal., 1999; Entergy Nuclear
Generation Company, 2000; Froese andPauly, 2001, 2003; NOAA, 200 Ib; and Overholtz, 2002b.
Table Cl-8: Atlantic Menhaden Life History Parameters
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
Name (M) (F) Fishery
1.20 0 0
4.47 0 0
6.19 0 0
0.540 0 0
0.450 1.1 1.0
0.450 1.1 1.0
0.450 1.1 1.0
0.450 1.1 1.0
0.450 1.1 1.0
0.450 1.1 1.0
0.450 1.1 1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000482
0.00000530
0.000684
0.0251
0.235
0.402
0.586
0.863
1.08
1.27
1.43
Sources: PG&E National Energy Group, 2001; and Froese andPauly, 2003.
App. Cl-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-9: Atlantic Silverside Life History Parameters
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Sources:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Name (M)
1.41
5.81
2.63
3.00
6.91
PG&E National Energy Group,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000473
0.00000520
0.00490
0.0205
0.0349
2001; andFroese andPauly, 2003..
Table Cl-10:
Atlantic Tomcod Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to Weight
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery (Ibs)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Sources:
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.46
2.83
2.83
Stewart and Auster, 1987;
0
0
0
0
0
0
McLaren etal, 1988;
0
0
0
0
0
0
Virginia Tech,
0.00000126
0.0000185
0.0145
0.0804
0.270
0.486
1998; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table Cl-11: Bay Anchovy Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.10
7.19
2.09
2.30
2.30
2.30
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000517
0.000000569
0.00104
0.00370
0.00765
0.0126
a. Includes bay anchovy, striped anchovy, and other anchovies not identified to species.
Sources: PG&E National Energy Group, 2001; andFroese andPauly, 2003.
APP. Cl-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-12: Blueback Herring Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
(M) (F)
0.558 0
1.83 0
Post-yolksac larvae 1.74 0
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Sources: PSE&G,
3.13 0
3.13 0
0.300 0
0.300 0
0.300 0
0.900 0
1.50 0
1.50 0
1.50 0
1.50 0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00321
0.00640
0.00959
0.0128
0.0160
0.0905
0.204
0.318
0.414
0.488
0.540
0.576
1999; and PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Table Cl-13: Bluefish Life History
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
(M) (F)
1.35 0
8.24 0
5.07 0.06
0.350 0.28
0.350 0.28
0.350 0.28
0.350 0.28
0.350 0.28
0.350 0.28
0.350 0.28
0.350 0.28
0.350 0.28
0.350 0.28
0.350 0.28
0.350 0.28
0.350 0.28
0.350 0.28
Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000123
0.0000135
0.194
1.06
2.81
5.21
7.95
10.7
13.4
15.9
18.0
19.9
21.6
22.9
24.1
25.0
25.8
Sources: Wang and Kernehan, 1979; and PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
App. C1-&
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-14: Butterfish Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
6.64
0.916
0.800
0.800
0.800
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.28
0.28
0.28
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000396
0.000000436
0.000251
0.0272
0.0986
0.944
Sources: Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977; Scott and Scott, 1988; Able andFahay,
1998; Froese andPauly, 2001; andNOAA, 2001a.
Table Cl-15: Commercial Crab Life History Parameters3
Stage Name
Megalops
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.30
1.73
1.10
1.38
1.27
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000291
0.00000293
0.00719
0.113
0.326
a. Includes green crab, jonah crab, lady crab, lesser blue crab, narrow mud crab, and spider crab.
Sources: Hartman, 1993; andPSE&G, 1999.
Table Cl-16: Gunner Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
3.49
2.90
2.90
0.831
0.831
0.286
0.342
0.645
1.26
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000787
0.00000236
0.0000814
0.00311
0.0246
0.0749
0.145
0.229
0.624
Sources: Serchuk and Cole, 1974; Scott and Scott, 1988; Able andFahay, 1998; and Entergy Nuclear
Generation Company, 2000.
APP. Cl-9
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-17: Fourbeard Rockling Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
4.25
0.916
0.490
0.490
0.490
0.490
0.490
0.490
0.490
0.490
0.490
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000637
0.000000700
0.00187
0.0142
0.0209
0.0402
0.0617
0.0906
0.151
0.188
0.251
0.323
Sources: Deree, 1999; Froese andPauly, 2001, 2003; andNMFS, 2003a.
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Sources: Clayton
2003; andNMFS,
Table Cl-18:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
3.79
0.916
0.460
0.460
0.460
0.460
0.460
0.460
0.460
0.460
0.460
etal, 1978; Scott and
2003a.
Grubby Life History
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Scott, 1988; Able andFahay, 1998; Froese
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000473
0.00000520
0.0000197
0.00633
0.0115
0.0190
0.0292
0.0424
0.0592
0.0799
0.105
0.135
andPauly, 2001,
App. Cl-10
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-19: Hogchoker Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.04
5.20
2.31
2.56
0.705
0.705
0.705
0.705
0.705
Sources: PG&E National Energy Group,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000487
0.00110
0.00207
0.0113
0.0313
0.0610
0.0976
0.138
0.178
2001; andFroese and Pauly, 2003..
Table Cl-20: Lumpfish Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
8.48
0.916
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Sources: Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953; Scott and Scott, 1988; Able and Fahay, 1998;
Pauly, 2001; andNMFS, 2003 a.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000317
0.0000169
0.00472
0.0138
0.0573
0.149
0.686
1.86
Froese and
App. Cl-11
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-21: Northern Pipefish Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
2.40
0.916
0.750
0.750
0.750
0.750
0.750
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sources: Scott and Scott, 1988; Able andFahay, 1998; Froese andPauly, 2001;
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000773
0.0000122
0.00785
0.0151
0.0180
0.0212
0.0247
0.0285
andNMFS, 2003 a.
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Sources: Saila et al,
Table Cl-22:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.922
4.07
6.93
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
Pollock Life History
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000154
0.00000169
0.00166
0.657
1.30
1.73
3.24
4.93
5.70
6.83
8.46
9.93
12.0
14.8
16.4
18.1
19.9
21.2
1997; Able andFahay, 1998; Froese andPauly, 2001; andNOAA, 2001b.
App. Cl-12
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-23: Radiated Shanny Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
2.20
0.916
0.440
0.440
0.440
0.440
0.440
0.440
0.440
0.440
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sources: Scott and Scott, 1988; Froese andPauly, 2001; Pepin
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0 0
0 0
Weight
(Ibs)
.00000430
.00000473
0 0.0000559
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
etal, 2002; and NMFS,
0.000472
0.00163
0.00374
0.00719
0.00988
0.0132
0.0258
0.0448
2003a.
Table Cl-24: Rainbow Smelt Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
4.44
3.12
1.39
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Sources: PG&E National Energy Group,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0 0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
000000990
0.00110
0.00395
0.0182
0.0460
0.0850
0.131
0.180
0.228
2001; and Froese andPauly, 2003.
App. Cl-13
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae 2 mm
Larvae 2.5 mm
Larvae 3.0 mm
Larvae 3.5 mm
Larvae 4.0 mm
Larvae 4.5 mm
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Table Cl-25: Red
Hake Life History Parameters"
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(M) (F) Fishery
1.22
0.670
0.670
0.670
0.670
0.670
3.35
4.83
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
a. Includes red hake, spotted hake, and white
Sources: Scott and Scott, 1988; Saila et al,
NOAA, 2001b.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
hake.
1997; Able and F ahoy,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1998; Froese
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000487
0.000000536
0.000000589
0.000000744
0.00000118
0.00000176
0.00000251
0.00345
0.231
0.805
0.991
1.22
1.55
1.93
2.36
2.86
3.42
3.66
andPauly, 2001; and
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Table Cl-26: Rock
Gunnel Life History
Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(M) (F) Fishery
2.30
1.66
0.916
0.440
0.440
0.440
0.440
0.440
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000924
0.0000102
0.000701
0.00382
0.0128
0.0223
0.0371
0.0490
Sources: Scott and Scott, 1988; Froese andPauly, 2001; andNMFS, 2003a.
App. Cl-14
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-27: Sculpin Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
a. Includes longhorn
species.
Sources: Clayton et
communication with
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
3.79
0.916
0.460
0.460
0.460
0.460
0.460
0.460
0.460
0.460
0.460
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
sculpin, moustache sculpin, shorthorn sculpin, and other
al, 1978; Scott and Scott, 1988; Froese andPauly, 2001
Y. DeReynier (NMFS, November 19, 2002).
to Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000107
0.0000118
0.000754
0.00404
0.139
0.332
0.420
0.475
0.541
0.576
0.612
0.637
sculpin not identified to
; and personal
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Table Cl-28
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.43
4.55
3.36
0.383
0.383
0.383
0.383
0.383
0.383
0.383
0.383
0.383
0.383
0.383
Sources: PG&E National Energy Group,
: Scup Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
to Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000773
0.00110
0.0280
0.132
0.322
0.572
0.845
1.12
1.37
1.59
1.78
1.94
2.07
2.23
2001; and Froese andPauly, 2003,
App. Cl-15
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-29: Seaboard Goby Life History Parameters
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Sources:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Name (M)
0.288
4.09
2.30
2.55
PG&E National Energy Group,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000164
0.0000180
0.000485
0.00205
2001; andFroese andPauly, 2003..
Table Cl-30: Searobin Life History Parameters"
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Name (M)
2.30
3.66
0.916
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000132
0.00000145
0.000341
0.0602
0.176
0.267
0.386
0.537
0.721
0.944
1.21
a. Includes northern searobin, striped searobin, and other searobin not identified to species.
Sources: Virginia Tech, 1998; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; andFroese andPauly,
2001, 2003.
App. Cl-16
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-31: Silver Hake Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.43
6.62
4.58
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
Source: PG&E National Energy Group,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
2001.
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000203
0.0000223
0.00516
0.0729
0.242
0.456
0.646
0.788
0.889
0.958
1.00
1.03
1.05
1.06
1.06
Table Cl-32: Skate Species Life History Parameters8
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
3.00
2.30
0.916
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0125
0.0138
0.0593
0.157
0.394
0.750
1.15
1.51
1.62
1.65
1.72
a. Includes clearnose skate, little skate, and other skates not identified to species.
Sources: Scott and Scott, 1988; NOAA, 1993, 2001b; andFroese andPauly, 2000.
APP.C1-17
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-33: Striped Bass Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age 21+
Age 22+
Age 23+
Age 24+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.28
6.28
5.63
1.11
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
Source: PG&E National Energy Group,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.02
0.06
0.20
0.29
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
2001.
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000282
0.0000310
0.0405
0.386
1.37
3.06
5.35
8.07
11.0
14.1
17.1
20.0
22.8
25.3
27.6
29.7
31.6
33.3
34.7
36.0
37.2
38.2
39.0
39.8
40.4
41.0
41.5
App. Cl-18
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Table Cl-34: Striped
Killifish Life History Parameters"
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
(M) (F)
2.30
3.00
0.916
0.777
0.777
0.777
0.777
0.777
0.777
0.777
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000180
0.0000182
0.000157
0.0121
0.0327
0.0551
0.0778
0.0967
0.113
0.158
a. Includes mummichog, striped killifish, and other killifish not identified to species.
Sources: Coriander, 1969; Meredith andLotrich, 1979; Able andFahay, 1998; andNMFS, 2003a.
App. Cl-19
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-35: Tautog Life History Parameters
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age 21+
Age 22+
Age 23+
Age 24+
Sources:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Name (M)
1.40
5.86
5.02
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
PG&E National Energy Group,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000123
0.0221
0.0637
0.217
0.440
0.734
1.08
1.48
1.89
2.32
2.76
3.18
3.60
4.00
4.38
4.73
5.07
5.38
5.67
5.94
6.19
6.42
6.63
6.82
6.99
7.15
10.0
2001; andFroese andPauly, 2003.
App. Cl-20
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-36: Threespine Stickleback Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.288
2.12
1.70
1.42
1.42
1.42
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000567
0.00110
0.00377
0.00917
0.0112
0.0116
a. Includes blackspotted stickleback, fourspine stickleback, ninespine stickleback, threespine
stickleback, and other stickleback not identified to species.
Sources:, Wang, 1986; and PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
Table Cl-37: Weakfish Life History Parameters3
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.498
2.84
3.39
5.47
0.694
0.730
0.657
0.511
0.511
0.511
0.511
0.511
0.511
0.511
0.511
0.511
0.511
0.511
0.511
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.25
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.0650
0.130
0.195
0.260
0.680
1.12
1.79
2.91
6.21
7.14
9.16
10.8
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
a Includes northern kingcroaker and weakfish.
Sources: PSE&G, 1999; PG&E National Energy Group, 2001; andFroese andPauly,
2003,
APP. Cl-21
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-38: White Perch Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Sources: Stanley
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.42
4.59
9.06
0.693
0.693
0.543
0.543
1.46
1.46
1.46
1.46
1.46
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
andDanie, 1983; and PG&E National Energy
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Group, 2001.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000842
0.00110
0.00302
0.0516
0.156
0.248
0.331
0.423
0.523
0.613
0.658
0.794
Table Cl-39: Windowpane Life History Parameters8
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.41
6.99
2.98
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
a. Includes American fourspot flounder, smallmouth flounder, summer flounder, and
Sources: PG&E National Energy Group, 2001; andFroese andPauly, 2003.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000154
0.00165
0.00223
0.0325
0.122
0.265
0.433
0.603
0.761
0.899
1.01
1.11
1.19
windowpane.
App. Cl-22
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae 1
Larvae 2
Larvae 3
Larvae 4
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Table Cl-40: Winter
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.288
2.05
3.42
3.52
0.177
2.38
1.10
0.924
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
Flounder Life History Parameters
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0066
0.082
0.20
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.'
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00441
0.0110
0.0176
0.0221
0.0330
0.208
0.562
0.997
1.42
1.78
2.07
2.29
2.45
2.57
2.65
2.71
2.75
2.78
2.80
2.82
2.83
a. Includes winter flounder, yellowtail founder, and other flounder not identified to species.
Sources: Able and Fahay, 1998; and PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
App. Cl-23
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-41: Winter Flounder Life History Parameters 2".
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae 3.0 mm
Larvae 3.5 mm
Larvae 4.0 mm
Larvae 4.5 mm
Larvae 5.0 mm
Larvae 5.5 mm
Larvae 6.0 mm
Larvae 6.5 mm
Larvae 7.0 mm
Larvae 7.5 mm
Larvae 8.0 mm
Larvae 8.5 mm
Larvae 9.0 mm
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
a. Includes winter
Sources: Saila et
Group, 2001.
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
(M) (F)
0.288 0
0.705 0
0.705 0
0.705 0
0.705 0
0.705 0
0.705 0
0.705 0
0.705 0
0.705 0
0.705 0
0.705 0
0.705 0
0.705 0
2.38 0
1.10 0.0066
0.924 0.082
0.200 0.20
0.200 0.33
0.200 0.33
0.200 0.33
0.200 0.33
0.200 0.33
0.200 0.33
0.200 0.33
0.200 0.33
0.200 0.33
0.200 0.33
0.200 0.33
0.200 0.33
0.200 0.33
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00000127
0.00000137
0.00000146
0.00000156
0.00000216
0.00000291
0.00000382
0.00000489
0.00000616
0.00000764
0.00000933
0.0000113
0.0000135
0.0330
0.208
0.562
0.997
1.42
1.78
2.07
2.29
2.45
2.57
2.65
2.71
2.75
2.78
2.80
2.82
2.83
flounder, witch founder, and other flounder not identified to species.
al, 1997; Able andFahay, 1998; Colarusso, 2000; and PG&E National Energy
App. Cl-24
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Table Cl-42: Winter
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Name (M)
0.288
9.17
2.38
1.10
0.924
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
Flounder Life History Parameters 3".
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0066
0.082
0.20
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
a. Includes fourspot flounder, smooth flounder, witch flounder, yellowtail flounder, and
not identified to species.
Sources: Able and Fahay, 1998; Colarusso, 2000; and PG&E National Energy Group,
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00441
0.0330
0.208
0.562
0.997
1.42
1.78
2.07
2.29
2.45
2.57
2.65
2.71
2.75
2.78
2.80
2.82
2.83
other flounder
2001.
App. Cl-25
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-43: Other Commercial Species Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.08
5.71
2.85
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
a. Includes goosefish, redfish, spot, and wolffish.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbin et al, 1983; Ruppert et al, 1985; Able andFahay, 1998; PSE&G,
1999; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; andASMFC, 200Ib.
Table Cl-44: Other Recreational Species Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.08
5.71
2.85
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
a. Includes Atlantic torpedo, blue runner, cownose ray, dusky smooth hound, flathead mullet, northern
puffer, smooth dogfish, striped cusk-eel, white catfish, and white mullet.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbin et al, 1983; Ruppert et al., 1985; Able andFahay, 1998; PSE&G,
1999; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; andASMFC, 200Ib.
App. Cl-26
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-45
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
: Other Recreational
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.08
5.71
1.43
1.43
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
and Commercial Species Life History
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
a. Includes American eel, black sea bass, conger eel, and piked dogfish.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbin et al, 1983; Ruppert et al, 1985; Able andFahay,
1999; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; andASMFC, 200 Ib.
Parameters"
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0472
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
1998; PSE&G,
Table Cl-46: Other Forage Species Life
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.04
7.70
1.29
1.62
1.62
1.62
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
History Parameters"
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000186
0.00000158
0.000480
0.00381
0.00496
0.00505
a. See Table Cl-47 for a list of species.
Sources: Derickson and Price, 1973; andPSE&G, 1999.
App. Cl-27
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-47: Other Forage Species3
African pompano
Alligatorfish
Atlantic bigeye
Atlantic moonfish
Atlantic seasnail
Banded rudderfish
Bigeye scad
Black ruff
Brown trout
Cornet fish
Crevalle jack
Flying gurnard
Glasseye
Gulf snailfish
Long finned squid
Lookdown
Mackerel scad
Northern sennet
Northern shortfin squid
Ocean pout
Orange filefish
Oyster toadfish
Pearlside
Planehead filefish
Rough scad
Round scad
Sand tiger
Sea lamprey
Sheepshead minnow
Short bigeye
Silver rag
Spotfin butterflyfish
Striped burrfish
Trumpetfish
Wrymouth
a. Includes other organisms not identified to species.
App. Cl-28
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Chapter C2
Chapter C2: Evaluation of Impingement and
Entrainment in the North Atlantic Region
Chapter Contents
C2-1
C2-2
C2-3
C2-4
C2-5
I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated C2-1
I&E Data Evaluated C2-3
EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III
Facilities in the North Atlantic Region
Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Yield C2-3
Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities
in the North Atlantic Region Under
Alternative Options C2-6
Assumptions Used in Calculating
Recreational and Commercial Losses C2-7
Background: North Atlantic Marine
Fisheries
Commercial and recreational fisheries of the North
Atlantic region are managed by the New England
Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC) according
to Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) developed by
NEFMC (NMFS, 2002a). The individual states
control waters within three miles. NOAA Fisheries
Northeast Fisheries Science Center provides
scientific and technical support for management,
conservation, and fisheries development.
The multispecies groundfish fishery is the most
valuable commercial fishery of the North Atlantic
region, followed by American lobster (Homarus americanus) (NMFS, 1999a). Important groundfish species
include Atlantic cod (Gadus morhud), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), yellowtail flounder (Pleuronectes
ferrugineus), windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus), and winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus).
Atlantic pelagic fisheries are dominated by Atlantic mackerel {Scomber scombrus), Atlantic herring (Clupea
harengus), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), and butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) (NMFS, 1999a). Important
recreational fisheries of the region include Atlantic cod, winter flounder, Atlantic mackerel, striped bass (Morone
saxatilis), bluefish, and bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) (NMFS, 1999a).
Offshore fisheries for crustaceans and molluscs, particularly American lobster (Homarus americanus) and sea
scallop (Placopecten magellanicus), are among the most valuable fisheries in the Northeast (NMFS, 1999a).
Surfclams (Spisula solidissima), ocean quahogs (Arctica islandica), squids (Loligo pealeii andlllex illecebrosus),
northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis), and red crab (Chaceon quinquedens) also provide important invertebrate
fisheries.
The Northeast lobster fishery is second in commercial value after the multispecies groundfish fishery. The most
recent comprehensive stock assessment, completed in 1996, indicated that lobster fishing mortality rates for both
inshore and offshore populations greatly exceed the levels needed to provide maximum yields (NMFS, 1999a).
Lobster fishing mortality in the Gulf of Maine was almost double the overfishing level. Inshore from Cape Cod
through Long Island Sound, fishing mortality was three times the overfishing level.
C2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated
Table C2-1 provides a list of species/species groups evaluated by EPA that are subject to impingement and
entrainment (I&E) in the North Atlantic region. Appendix Cl provides the life history parameters that were used
to express these losses as age-1 equivalents and foregone fishery yield.
C2-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Chapter C2
Table C2-1: Species/Species Groups Evaluated by EPA that are Subject to
I&E in the North Atlantic Region
Species/Species Group
Recreational Commercial Forage
Alewife
X
American plaice
X
American sand lance
X
American shad
X
Atlantic cod
X
X
Atlantic herring
X
Atlantic mackerel
X
X
Atlantic menhaden
X
Atlantic silverside
X
Atlantic tomcod
X
Bay anchovy
X
Blueback herring
X
Bluefish
X
X
Butterfish
X
Crabs (commercial)
X
Gunner
X
Fourbeard rockling
X
Grubby
X
Hogchoker
X
Lumpfish
X
Northern pipefish
X
Other (commercial)
X
Other (forage)
X
Other (recreational)
X
Other (recreational and commercial)
X
X
Pollock
X
X
Radiated shanny
X
Rainbow smelt
X
Red hake
X
Rock gunnel
X
Sculpins
X
X
Scup
X
X
Seaboard goby
X
Searobin
X
X
Silver hake
X
Skate species
X
Striped bass
X
Striped killifish
X
C2-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Chapter C2
Table C2-1: Species/Species Groups Evaluated by EPA that are Subject to
I&E in the North Atlantic Region
Species/Species Group Recreational Commercial Forage
Tautog
Threespine stickleback
Weakfish
White perch
Windowpane
Winter flounder
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C2-2 I&E Data Evaluated
Table C2-2 lists the facility I&E data evaluated by EPA to estimate current I&E rates at Phase III facilities in the
North Atlantic Region. See Chapter Al of Part A for a discussion of the methods used to evaluate the I&E data.
Table C2-2: Facility I&E Data
Facility
Brayton Point (MA)
GE Company Aircraft
Engines (MA)
Millstone (CT)
Pfizer Incorporated (CT)
Pilgrim Nuclear (MA)
Seabrook Nuclear (NH)
Evaluated
Phase
II
III
II
III
II
II
for the North Atlantic Analysis
Years of Data
1974-1983
1995-1996
1973-2001
1998
1990-1998
1990-1998
C2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III Facilities in the North Atlantic Region
Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Yield
Table C2-3 provides EPA's estimates of the annual age-1 equivalents and foregone fishery yield resulting from
the impingement of aquatic species at Phase III facilities located in the North Atlantic region. Table C2-4 displays
this information for entrainment. Note that in these tables, "total yield" includes direct losses of harvested species
and the yield of harvested species that is lost due to losses of forage species (trophic transfer).
The lost yield estimates presented in Tables C2-3 and C2-4 are expressed as total pounds and include losses to
both commercial and recreational catch. To estimate the economic value of these losses, total yield was
partitioned between commercial and recreational fisheries based on the landings in each fishery. Table C2-6
presents the percentage impacts assumed for each species/species group.
C2-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Chapter C2
Table C2-3: Estimated Current Annual Impingement at Phase III
in the North Atlantic Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Fishery Yield
Species/Species
Alewife
Facilities
Foregone
Group Age-1 Equivalents (#s) Total Yield (Ibs)
483
<1
American plaice <1 <1
American sand lance
913
<1
American shad <1 <1
Atlantic cod
Atlantic herring
19
123
7
17
Atlantic mackerel <1 <1
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic silverside
10
13,900
1
<1
Atlantic tomcod <1 <1
Bay anchovy
Blueback herring
423
3
<1
<1
Bluefish <1 <1
Butterfish
Crabs (commercial)
Gunner
Fourbeard rockling
Grubby
Hogchoker
Lumpfish
Northern pipefish
Other (commercial)
Other (forage)
Other (recreational and
Other (recreational)
Pollock
Radiated shanny
Rainbow smelt
Red hake
Rock gunnel
Sculpins
Scup
206
790
42
1
666
720
90
233
1
1,410
commercial) 9
10
<1
9
1,200
4
105
91
5
6
7
<1
<1
<1
<1
13
<1
<1
<1
2
2
1
<1
<1
1
<1
6
1
Seaboard goby <1 <1
Searobin
Silver hake
Skate species
34
47
90
1
6
19
Striped bass <1 <1
Striped killifish
85
<1
C2-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Chapter C2
Table C2-3: Estimated Current Annual Impingement at Phase III Facilities
in the North Atlantic Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone
Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group Age-1 Equivalents (#s) Total Yield (Ibs)
Tautog 6 3
Threespine stickleback 509 <1
Trophic transfer3 <1 6
Weakfish 8 6
White perch <1 <1
Windowpane 73 1
Winter flounder 743 90
a. Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
Table C2-4: Estimated Current Annual Entrainment at Phase III Facilities in
the North Atlantic Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone
Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Alewife
American plaice
American sand lance
Age-1 Equivalents (#s) Total Yield (Ibs)
54 <1
154 27
170,000 <1
American shad <1 <1
Atlantic cod
Atlantic herring
Atlantic mackerel
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic silverside
556 200
5,320 753
903 125
1,760 214
889 <1
Atlantic tomcod <1 <1
Bay anchovy
147,000 <1
Blueback herring <1 <1
Bluefish <1 <1
Butterfish
Gunner
Fourbeard rockling
Grubby
Hogchoker
Lumpfish
Northern pipefish
Other (commercial)
Other (forage)
45 1
184,000 1,000
56,800 <1
165,000 <1
1,540 <1
8 1
1,660 <1
3 1
1,640 <1
Other (recreational and commercial) <1 <1
Other (recreational)
2 <1
C2-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Chapter C2
Table C2-4: Estimated Current Annual Entrainment at Phase III Facilities in
the North Atlantic Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone
Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Pollock
Radiated shanny
Rainbow smelt
Age-1 Equivalents (#s)
1
191,000
5,680
Total Yield (Ibs)
1
<1
<1
Red hake <1 <1
Rock gunnel
Sculpins
Scup
Seaboard goby
Searobin
Silver hake
1,090,000
83,800
63
168,000
488
180
<1
5,630
10
<1
19
24
Skate species <1 <1
Striped bass <1 <1
Striped killifish
Tautog
Threespine stickleback
Trophic transfer3
Weakfish
51
4,810
73
<1
53
<1
2,690
<1
9
42
White perch <1 <1
Windowpane
Winter flounder
a Contribution of forage fish to
901
2,060
yield based on trophic transfer (see
17
249
Chapter A 1).
C2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities in the North Atlantic Region Under
Alternative Options
Table C2-5 presents estimated reductions in I&E under the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the
"200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, and the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies" option. Reductions under
all other options are presented in Appendix C2.
Table C2-5: Estimated Reductions in I&E Under Alternative Options
Age-1 Equivalents Foregone Fishery Yield
Option (#s) (Ibs)
50 MOD All Option 908,000 4,380
200 MOD All Option 193,000 930
100 MOD Option 734,000 3,540
C2-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Chapter C2
C2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating Recreational and Commercial Losses
The lost yield estimates presented in Tables C2-3 and C2-4 are expressed as total pounds and include losses to
both commercial and recreational catch. To estimate the economic value of these losses, total yield was
partitioned between commercial and recreational fisheries based on the landings in each fishery. Table C2-6
presents the percentage impacts assumed for each species/species group.
Table C2-6: Percentage of Total Impacts Occurring to Commercial and Recreational
Fisheries in the North Atlantic Region as a Result of I&E at Phase III Facilities
Percent Impact to
Species/Species Group Recreational Fisherya'b
American plaice
American shad
Atlantic cod
Atlantic herring
Atlantic mackerel
Atlantic menhaden
Bluefish
Butterfish
Crabs (commercial)
Gunner
Other (commercial)
Other (recreational)
Other (recreational and commercial)
Pollock
Red hake
Sculpins
Scup
Searobin
Silver hake
Skate species
Striped bass
Tautog
Trophic transfer0
Weakfish
White perch
Windowpane
Winter flounderd.
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
22.2%
0.0%
89.1%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
50.0%
50.0%
0.0%
79.0%
50.0%
83.9%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
92.2%
41.0%
14.6%
78.8%
0.0%
50.0%
Percent Impact to
Commercial Fishery a'b
100.0%
100.0%
50.0%
100.0%
77.8%
100.0%
10.9%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
50.0%
50.0%
100.0%
21.0%
50.0%
16.1%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
7.8%
59.0%
85.4%
21.2%
100.0%
50.0%
a Based on landings from 1993 to 2001.
b Calculated using recreational landings data from NMFS (2003b,
..http://www.st.nmfs.gov/recreational/queries/catch/snapshot.htmL) and commercial landings data from
NMFS (2003a, ..http://www.st.nmfs.gov/commercial/landings/annual landings.htinL).
°. Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
d A 50%, 50% split was assumed because landings, which largely occur in the ocean, are not
considered to be an accurate indicator of impact for these species, which are largely caught near-shore.
C2-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Chapter C2
See Chapter C3 for results of the commercial fishing benefits analysis and Chapter C4 for recreational fishing
results. As discussed in Chapter A8, benefits were discounted to account for (1) the time to achieve compliance
once a Phase III final regulation for existing facilities would have become effective, and (2) the time it takes for
fish spared from I&E to reach a harvestable age. For the North Atlantic region, EPA assumes the average
compliance year will be 2010 for all options.
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Appendix C2
Appendix C2: Reductions in I&E Under
Supplemental Policy Options
Table C2-1: Estimated Reductions in I&E in the
North Atlantic Region Under Supplemental Options
Age-1 Equivalents Foregone Fishery Yield
Option (#s) (Ibs)
I-only Everywhere
I&E like Phase II
I&E Everywhere
I-only Everywhere
I&E like Phase II
I&E Everywhere
I-only Everywhere
I&E Everywhere
Electric Generators 2-50 MGD
0
0
0
Manufacturers 2-50 MGD
0
0
0
Manufacturers 50+ MGD
0
910,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,380
App. C2-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Chapter C3
Chapter C3: Commercial Fishing Benefits
Chapter Contents
C3-1
C3-2
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the commercial
fishing benefits analysis for the North Atlantic
region. The chapter presents EPA's estimates of
baseline (i.e., current) annual commercial fishery
losses from impingement and entrainment (I&E) at
potentially regulated facilities in the North Atlantic
region and annual reductions in these losses under
the regulatory options for Phase III existing
facilities.1:
>• the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option,
•> the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies"
option, and
> the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies"
option.
The chapter then presents the estimated benefits to commercial fisheries from eliminating baseline losses from
I&E, and the expected benefits under the regulatory options.
Chapter A4, "Methods for Estimating Commercial Fishing Benefits," details the methods used by EPA to
estimate the commercial fishing benefits of reducing and eliminating I&E losses.
EPA considered a wide range of policy options in developing this regulation. In addition to the regulatory options,
EPA evaluated several supplemental options. Appendix C3 presents results of the commercial fishing benefits
analysis for the supplemental options. For additional information on the options, please see the TDD.
Baseline Commercial Losses C3-1
Expected Benefits Under Regulatory
Analysis Options C3-3
C3-2.1 Commercial Fishing Benefits of
the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies"
Option C3-3
C3-2.2 Commercial Fishing Benefits of
the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies"
Option C3-4
C3-2.3 Commercial Fishing Benefits of
the "100 MOD for Certain
Waterbodies" Option C3-4
C3-1 Baseline Commercial Losses
Table C3-1 provides EPA's estimate of the value of gross revenues lost in commercial fisheries resulting from the
impingement of aquatic species at facilities in the North Atlantic region. Table C3-2 displays this information for
entrainment. Total annualized revenue losses are approximately $1,536 (undiscounted)
1 See the Introduction to this report for a description of the regulatory options.
C3-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Chapter C3
Table C3-1: Annualized Commercial Fishing Gross Revenues Lost due
to Impingement at Facilities in the North Atlantic Region
Species"
Atlantic cod
Atlantic herring
Butterfish
Commercial crabs
Sculpins
Silver hake
Skate species
Weakfish
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Trophic transfer13
Total
Estimated
Pounds of
Harvest Lost
3
17
6
7
1
6
19
5
1
45
4
114
Commercial
Value per
Pound
(2004$)
$1.05
$0.06
$0.62
$0.57
$0.62
$0.40
$0.16
$0.94
$1.76
$1.30
$0.66
Estimated Value
of Harvest Lost
(2004$)
Undiscounted
$4
$1
$4
$4
$1
$2
$3
$5
$2
$58
$3
$87
a. Species included are only those that have baseline losses greater than $1.
b Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter
Al).
Table C3-2: Annualized Commercial Fishing Gross Revenues Lost due
to Entrainment at Facilities in the North Atlantic Region
Species"
American plaice
Atlantic cod
Atlantic herring
Atlantic mackerel
Atlantic menhaden
Butterfish
Pollock
Sculpins
Scup
Silver hake
Tautog
Weakfish
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Trophic transfer13
Total
Estimated
Pounds of
Harvest Lost
27
100
753
97
214
1
1
1,183
5
24
210
36
17
124
5
2,797
Commercial
Value per
Pound
(2004$)
$1.28
$1.05
$0.06
$0.24
$0.06
$0.62
$0.78
$0.62
$1.12
$0.40
$1.16
$0.94
$1.76
$1.30
$0.66
Estimated Value
of Harvest Lost
(2004$)
Undiscounted
$34
$105
$48
$23
$13
$1
$1
$734
$6
$9
$245
$34
$30
$162
$3
$1,448
Species included are only those that have baseline losses greater than $1.
Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter
C3-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Chapter C3
Table C3-2: Annualized Commercial Fishing Gross Revenues Lost due
to Entrainment at Facilities in the North Atlantic Region
Species"
Estimated
Pounds of
Harvest Lost
Commercial
Value per
Pound
(2004$)
Estimated Value
of Harvest Lost
(2004$)
Undiscounted
Al).
C3-2 Expected Benefits Under Regulatory Analysis Options
As described in Chapter A4, EPA estimates for North Atlantic that, depending on species, 0 to 82% of the gross
revenue losses represent surplus losses to producers, assuming no change in prices or fishing costs. Earlier EPA
analysis assumed a rate of 40%. The 0% estimate, of course, results in loss estimates of $0.
The expected reductions in I&E attributable to changes at facilities required by the "50 MOD for All
Waterbodies" option (50 MGD All option) are 0% for impingement and 39.7% for entrainment; the expected
reductions for the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option (200 MGD All option) are 0% for impingement and
8.4% for entrainment; and the expected reductions for the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option (100 MGD
CWB option) are 0% for impingement and 32.1% for entrainment. Total annualized benefits are estimated by
applying these estimated reductions to the annual baseline producer surplus loss. As presented in Tables C3-3,
C3-4, and C3-5, this results in total annualized benefits of up to approximately $138 for the 50 MGD All option,
$28 for the 200 MGD All option, and $113 for the 100 MGD CWB option, assuming a 3% discount rate and a
species specific net benefits ratio..2.
C3-2.1 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table C3-3 shows EPA's analysis of the commercial benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option for the
North Atlantic region. The table shows that this option, assuming a species-specific net benefits ratio, will result
in undiscounted total annualized commercial benefits of approximately $169. When evaluated at 3% and
7% discount rates, the annualized commercial benefits are $138 and $107, respectively.
Table C3-3: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to
the 50 MGD All Option at Facilities in the North Atlantic Region (2004$)a
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost — 0%
$89
$0
$1,447
$0
$1,536
$0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $57 $425 $482
Expected reduction due to rule 0% 39.7%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $169
3% discount rate $138
2. The net benefits ratio is the fractional share of gross revenue associated with net benefits, by gear and vessel
type. See Chapter A4, section A4-10, for a description of the species-specific net benefits ratios and how they are
calculated.
C3-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Chapter C3
7% discount rate $ 107
a. Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter II for a timeline of benefits.
C3-2.2 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table C3-4 shows EPA's analysis of the commercial benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option for
the North Atlantic region. The table shows that this option, assuming a species-specific net benefits ratio, will
result in undiscounted total annualized commercial benefits of approximately $36. When evaluated at 3% and
7% discount rates, the annualized commercial benefits are $28 and $21, respectively.
Table C3-4: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to
the 200 MGD All Option at Facilities in the North Atlantic Region (2004$)."
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $89 $1,447 $1,536
Producer surplus lost — 0% $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $57 $425 $482
Expected reduction due to rule 0 8.4%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $36
3% discount rate $28
7% discount rate $21
a. Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter II for a timeline of benefits.
C3-2.3 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
Table C3-5 shows EPA's analysis of the commercial benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option
for the North Atlantic region. The table shows that this option, assuming a species-specific net benefits ratio, will
result in undiscounted total annualized commercial benefits of approximately $137. When evaluated at 3% and
7% discount rates, the annualized commercial benefits are $113 and $88, respectively.
C3-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Chapter C3
Table C3-5: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to
the 100 MGD CWB Option at Facilities in the North Atlantic Region (2004$)a
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $89 $1,447 $1,536
Producer surplus lost — 0% $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $57 $425 $482
Expected reduction due to rule 0% 32.1%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $137
3% discount rate $ 113
7% discount rate $88
a. Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter II for a timeline of benefits.
C3-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Appendix C3
Appendix C3: Commercial Fishing Benefits
Under Supplemental Policy Options
Introduction
Appendix Contents
Chapter C3 presents EPA's estimates of the
C3-1 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the
Supplemental Options C3-2
commercial benefits of the regulatory options for the
section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities in the
North Atlantic region. To facilitate comparisons
among the options, this appendix presents estimates
of the commercial fishing benefits of several supplemental options that EPA evaluated in preparation for this rule:
>• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option;
*• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option;
>• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option;
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option;
> "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option;
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option;
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere" option; and
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I&E Everywhere" option.
Commercial fishing benefits presented in this chapter were estimated using the benefit transfer approach
discussed in Chapter C3 and in Chapter A4, "Methods for Estimating Commercial Fishing Benefits."
App. C3-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Appendix C3
C3-1 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the Supplemental Options
No facilities located in the North Atlantic region are electric generators or manufacturers with design intake flows
greater than 2 MOD and less than 50 MOD, so no facilities would have technology requirements under the
"Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option, the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like
Phase II" option, the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option, the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD
I-only Everywhere" option, the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option, or the "Manufacturers 2-50
MGD I&E Everywhere" option. Additionally, no facilities located in the North Atlantic region are manufacturers
with design intake flows greater than 50 MGD that would have technology requirements under the
"Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere" option. Thus no commercial benefits are expected under these
options in the North Atlantic region.
Table C3-1 presents EPA's estimates of the annualized commercial benefits of the remaining supplemental option
in the North Atlantic region.
Table C3-1: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the "Manufacturers
50+ MGD I&E Everywhere" Option at Facilities in the North Atlantic Region (2004$)."
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $89 $1,447 $1,536
Producer surplus lost — 0% $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $57 $425 $482
Expected reduction due to rule 0% 40%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $169
3% discount rate $138
7% discount rate $ 107
a. Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time frame
of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter II for a
timeline of benefits.
App. C3-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Chapter C4
Chapter C4: Recreational Use Benefits
Chapter Contents
C4-1
C4-2
Benefit Transfer Approach Based on
Meta-Analysis C4-1
C4-1.1 Baseline Losses and Reductions in
Recreational Fishery Losses Under
the Regulatory Options C4-2
C4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits
from Eliminating Baseline I&E
Losses C4-3
C4-1.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of
the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies"
Option C4-4
C4-1.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of
the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies"
Option C4-5
C4-1.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the
"100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies"
Option C4-6
Limitations and Uncertainty C4-7
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the recreational
fishing benefits analysis for the North Atlantic
region. The chapter presents EPA's estimates of
baseline (i.e., current) annual recreational fishery
losses from impingement and entrainment (I&E) at
potentially regulated facilities in the North Atlantic
region and annual reductions in these losses under
the regulatory options for Phase III existing
facilities.1:
» the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option,
•> the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies"
option, and
> the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies"
option.
The chapter then presents the estimated welfare
gain to North Atlantic anglers from eliminating
baseline recreational fishing losses from I&E and
the expected benefits under the regulatory options.
EPA estimated the recreational benefits of reducing and eliminating I&E losses using a benefit transfer
methodology based on a meta-analysis of the marginal value of catching different species offish. This meta-
analysis is discussed in detail in Chapter A5, "Recreational Fishing Benefits Methodology."
EPA considered a wide range of policy options in developing this regulation. In addition to the regulatory options,
EPA evaluated several supplemental options. Appendix C4 presents results of the recreational fishing benefits
analysis for the supplemental options. For more information on the options, please see the TDD.
C4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-Analysis
EPA estimated the recreational welfare gain from the reduction in annual I&E losses expected under the policy
options, and the welfare gain from eliminating I&E at potentially regulated facilities, using a benefit transfer
approach. As discussed in Chapter A5, the Agency used a meta-analysis regression equation to estimate the
marginal recreational value per additional fish caught by anglers, for different species in different regions. Since
I&E at potentially regulated facilities affects a variety of species, EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to
one of the general species groups used in the meta-analysis. The Agency then calculated the economic value of
reducing or eliminating baseline I&E losses, for each species group, by multiplying the value per fish for that
species group by the number offish in the group that are lost in the baseline or saved under the policy options.2.
1 See the Introduction to this report for a description of the primary analysis options.
The estimates of I&E presented in this chapter include only the fraction of impinged and entrained recreational
fish that would be caught by anglers. The total amount of I&E of recreational species is actually much higher.
C4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Chapter C4
In general, the fit between the species with I&E losses and the species groups in the meta-analysis was good.
However, EPA's estimates of baseline I&E losses and reductions in I&E under the policy options included losses
of "unidentified" species. The "unidentified" group includes fish lost indirectly through trophic transfer, as well as
species for which no species information was available.3. Rather than using the meta-analysis regression to try to
predict the value per fish for an "unidentified" species, EPA assumed that per-fish values for these species can be
approximated by the weighted average value per fish for all species affected by I&E in the North Atlantic region.4
C4-1.1 Baseline Losses and Reductions in Recreational Fishery Losses Under the Regulatory Options
Table C4-1 presents EPA's estimates of baseline (i.e., current) annual recreational I&E losses at potentially
regulated facilities, and annual reductions in these losses under each of the regulatory options, in the North
Atlantic region. The table shows that total baseline losses to recreational fisheries are 20.8 thousand fish per year.
In comparison, the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option prevents losses of 8.2 thousand fish per year, the
"200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option prevents losses of 1.7 thousand fish per year, and the "100 MGD for
Certain Waterbodies" option prevents losses of 6.7 thousand fish per year. Of all the affected species, sculpin and
cunner have the highest losses in the baseline and the highest prevented losses under the regulatory options.
In addition to recreational fish that are lost because they are impinged or entrained, some recreational fish are lost
because the forage fish that they feed on are impinged or entrained, and thus removed from the food chain. These
trophic transfer losses of recreational species are included in EPA's estimates of total I&E losses. Since it is difficult to
predict which recreational species would be affected by losses of forage fish, these losses are classified as
"unidentified" recreational species. Also included in the "unidentified" group are losses offish that were reported by
facilities without information about their exact species.
4 EPA used the estimated level of baseline recreational losses for each species group as a weighting factor.
C4-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Chapter C4
Table C4-1: Baseline Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III Facilities
and Reductions in Recreational Losses Under the Regulatory Options in the North Atlantic Region
Annual Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses
Baseline Annual
Recreational Fishing Losses 50 MGD
Species3 (# of fish) All
Atlantic mackerel
Weakfish
Total (small game)
Winter flounder
Total (flatfish)
Atlantic cod
Gunner
Sculpin
Scup
Searobin
Tautog
Total (other saltwater)
Total (unidentified)
Total (all species)
39.0
5.7
44.7
136.5
136.5
54.6
4,635.4
15,233.1
5.4
32.2
618.4
20,579.2
10.0
20,770.3
15.5
2.0
17.5
39.9
39.9
21.0
1,842.4
6,049.4
2.0
12.0
245.5
8,172.3
1.6
8,231.2
(TF 01 I1SUJ
200 MGD
All
3.3
0.4
3.7
8.5
8.5
4.5
391.1
1,284.2
0.4
2.5
52.1
1,734.8
0.3
1,747.3
100 MGD
CWB
12.5
1.6
14.1
32.2
32.2
17.0
1,490.0
4,892.3
1.6
9.7
198.6
6,609.1
1.3
6,656.8
a. EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to one of the species groups used in the meta-analysis. The "other
saltwater" group includes bottomfish and other miscellaneous species. The "unidentified" group includes fish lost
indirectly through trophic transfer and fish reported lost without information about their species.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
C4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses
Table C4-2 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the welfare gain to recreational anglers from eliminating
baseline recreational fishery losses at potentially regulated facilities in the North Atlantic region. The table
presents baseline annual recreational I&E losses, the estimated value per fish, and the monetized annual welfare
gain from eliminating recreational losses, for each species group. Total baseline recreational fishing losses for the
North Atlantic region are 20.8 thousand fish per year. The undiscounted annual welfare gain to North Atlantic
anglers from eliminating these losses is $52.6 thousand (2004$), with lower and upper bounds of $27.4 thousand
and $101.0 thousand. Evaluated at 3% and 7% discount rates, the mean annualized welfare gain of eliminating
these losses is $49.5 thousand and $45.9 thousand, respectively. The majority of monetized recreational losses
from I&E under baseline conditions are attributable to losses of species in the "other saltwater" group, such as
sculpin and cunner.
C4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Chapter C4
Table C4-2: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E at Potentially Regulated
Phase III Facilities in the North Atlantic Region (2004$)
Baseline Annual
Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish1
Annualized Benefits from
Eliminating Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands) c'd
Species Group (thousands of fish)3 Low
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
0.0e
0.1
20.6
0.0e
20.8
20.8
20.8
$1.58
$2.91
$1.31
$1.32
Mean
$5.00
$5.02
$2.51
$2.53
High
$15.52
$8.70
$4.82
$4.86
Low
$0.1
$0.4
$27.0
$0.0f
$27.4
$25.8
$24.0
Mean
$0.2
$0.7
$51.7
$0.0f
$52.6
$49.5
$45.9
High
$0.7
$1.2
$99.1
$0.0f
$101.0
$95.2
$88.2
a. Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have been caught by
recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
°. Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying baseline losses by the estimated value per fish.
d Annualized values represent the total welfare gain over the time frame of the analysis from eliminating recreational
losses, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
and annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
e Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
f Denotes a positive value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
C4-1.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table C4-3 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies"
option for the North Atlantic region. The table presents the annual reduction in recreational I&E losses expected
under this option, the estimated value per fish, and annual monetized recreational welfare gain from this option,
by species group. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 8.2 thousand fish per year,
resulting in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $20.8 thousand (2004$), with lower and upper
bounds of $10.9 thousand and $40.0 thousand. Evaluated at 3% and 7% discount rates, the mean annualized
welfare gain from this reduction in recreational losses is $17.0 thousand and $13.2 thousand, respectively. The
majority of benefits result from reduced losses of species in the "other saltwater" group, such as sculpin and
cunner.
C4-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Chapter C4
Table C4-3: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
in the North Atlantic Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fishb
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)0'1*
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)8
0.0e
o.oe
8.2
0.0e
8.2
8.2
8.2
Low
$1.58
$2.91
$1.31
$1.32
Mean
$5.00
$5.02
$2.51
$2.53
High
$15.52
$8.70
$4.82
$4.86
Low
$0.0f
$0.1
$10.7
$0.0f
$10.9
$8.9
$6.9
Mean
$0.1
$0.2
$20.5
$0.0f
$20.8
$17.0
$13.2
High
$0.3
$0.3
$39.4
$0.0f
$40.0
$32.7
$25.3
a. Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have been caught by
recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
°. Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual reduction in recreational losses by the estimated value
per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
e Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
f Denotes a positive value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
C4-1.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table C4-4 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational benefits of the "200 MGD for All
Waterbodies" option for the North Atlantic region. The table presents the annual reduction in recreational I&E
losses expected under this option, the estimated value per fish, and annual monetized recreational welfare gain
from this option, by species group. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 1.7 thousand
fish per year, resulting in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $4.4 thousand (2004$), with
lower and upper bounds of $2.3 thousand and $8.5 thousand. Evaluated at 3% and 7% discount rates, the mean
annualized welfare gain from this reduction in recreational losses is $3.5 thousand and $2.6 thousand,
respectively. The majority of benefits result from reduced losses of species in the "other saltwater" group, such as
sculpin and cunner.
C4-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Chapter C4
Table C4-4: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies"
Option in the North Atlantic Region (2004$)
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)3
0.0e
o.oe
1.7
0.0e
1.7
1.7
1.7
Value per Fish"
Low
$1.58
$2.91
$1.31
$1.32
Mean
$5.00
$5.02
$2.51
$2.53
High
$15.52
$8.70
$4.82
$4.86
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)0
Low
$0.0f
$o.of
$2.3
$o.of
$2.3
$1.8
$1.3
Mean
$0.0f
$o.of
$4.4
$o.of
$4.4
$3.5
$2.6
High
$0.1
$0.1
$8.4
$0.0f
$8.5
$6.7
$4.9
a. Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have been caught by
recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
°. Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual reduction in recreational losses by the estimated value
per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
e Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
f Denotes a positive value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
C4-1.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
Table C4-5 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain
Waterbodies" option for the North Atlantic region. The table presents the annual reduction in recreational I&E
losses expected under this option, the estimated value per fish, and annual monetized recreational welfare gain
from this option, by species group. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 6.7 thousand
fish per year, resulting in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $16.8 thousand (2004$), with
lower and upper bounds of $8.8 thousand and $32.3 thousand. Evaluated at 3% and 7% discount rates, the mean
annualized welfare gain from this reduction in recreational losses is $13.9 thousand and $10.8 thousand,
respectively. The majority of benefits result from reduced losses of species in the "other saltwater" group, such as
sculpin and cunner.
C4-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Chapter C4
Table C4-5: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies'
Option in the North Atlantic Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fishb
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)'
c,d
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)8
0.0e
o.oe
6.6
0.0e
6.7
6.7
6.7
Low
$1.58
$2.91
$1.31
$1.32
Mean
$5.00
$5.02
$2.51
$2.53
High
$15.52
$8.70
$4.82
$4.86
Low
$0.0f
$0.1
$8.7
$0.0f
$8.8
$7.2
$5.7
Mean
$0.1
$0.2
$16.6
$0.0f
$16.8
$13.9
$10.8
High
$0.2
$0.3
$31.8
$0.0f
$32.3
$26.6
$20.8
a. Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have been caught by
recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
°. Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual reduction in recreational losses by the estimated value
per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
e Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
f Denotes a positive value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
C4-2 Limitations and Uncertainty
The results of the benefit transfer based on a meta-analysis represent EPA's best estimate of the recreational
benefits of the regulatory options. Nonetheless, there are a number of limitations and uncertainties inherent in
these estimates. General limitations pertaining to the development of the meta-analysis model, the use of the
model to estimate per-fish values, and the validity of the benefit transfer are discussed in section A5-3.3e and
section A5-5.3 of Chapter A5.
C4-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix C4
Appendix C4: Recreational Use Benefits
Under Supplemental Policy Options
Appendix Contents
C4-1
C4-2
Recreational Fishing Benefits of the
Supplemental Options C4-1
C4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in
Recreational Fishing Losses
Under the Supplemental Options... C4-1
C4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits of
the Supplemental Options C4-3
Comparison of Recreational Fishing
Benefits by Option C4-4
Introduction
Chapter C4 presents EPA's estimates of the
recreational benefits of the regulatory options for the
section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities in the
North Atlantic region. To facilitate comparisons
among the options, this appendix presents estimates
of the recreational fishing benefits of several
supplemental options that EPA evaluated in
preparation for this rule:
> "Electric Generators 2-50 MOD I-only
Everywhere" option;
> "Electric Generators 2-50 MOD I&E like
Phase II" option;
*• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option;
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option;
> "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option;
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option;
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere" option; and
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I&E Everywhere" option.
Recreational fishing benefits presented in this chapter were estimated using the benefit transfer approach
discussed in Chapter C4 and in Chapter A5, "Recreational Fishing Benefits Methodology."
C4-1 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Supplemental Options
C4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses Under the Supplemental Options
Table C4-1 presents EPA's estimates of the annual reduction in baseline (i.e., current) recreational fishing losses
from impingement and entrainment (I&E) in the North Atlantic region under the supplemental options. For more
information on the options, please see the TDD.
App. C4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix C4
Table C4-1: Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E Under the Supplemental Options in the North Atlantic Region
Annual Reduction in Recreational Losses
(# of fish)
Electric Generators 2-50 MGDb
I-only
Species" Everywhere
Atlantic mackerel
Weakfish
Total (small game)
Winter flounder
Total (flatfish)
Atlantic cod
Gunner
Sculpin
Scup
Searobin
Tautog
Total (other saltwater)
Total (unidentified)
Total (all species)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I&E like
Phase II
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I&E
Everywhere
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Manufacturers 2-50 MGDb
I-only
Everywhere
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I&E like
Phase II
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I&E
Everywhere
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Manufacturers 50+ MGD
I-only
Everywhere0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I&E
Everywhere
15.5
2.0
17.5
39.9
39.9
21.0
1,842.4
6,049.4
2.0
12.0
245.5
8,172.3
1.6
8,231.2
a. EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to one of the species groups used in the meta-analysis. The "other saltwater" group includes bottomfish and other
miscellaneous species. The "unidentified" group includes fish lost indirectly through trophic transfer and fish reported lost without information about their
species.
b No facilities located in the North Atlantic region are electric generators or manufacturers with design intake flows greater than 2 MGD and less than 50 MGD.
Thus no facilities would have technology requirements under the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option, the "Electric Generators 2-50
MGD I&E like Phase II" option, the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option, the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option, the
"Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option, or the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option.
°. No facilities located in the North Atlantic region are manufacturers with design intake flows greater than 50 MGD that would have technology requirements
under the "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere" option.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
APP. C4-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix C4
C4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Supplemental Options
No facilities located in North Atlantic region are electric generators or manufacturers with design intake flows
greater than 2 MGD and less than 50 MGD, so no facilities would have technology requirements under the
"Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option, the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like
Phase II" option, the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option, the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD
I-only Everywhere" option, the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option, or the "Manufacturers 2-50
MGD I&E Everywhere" option. Additionally, no facilities located in the North Atlantic region are manufacturers
with design intake flows greater than 50 MGD that would have technology requirements under the "Manufacturers
50+ MGD I-only Everywhere" option. Thus no recreational benefits are expected under these options in the North
Atlantic region.
Table C4-2 presents EPA's estimates of the annualized recreational benefits of the remaining supplemental option
in the North Atlantic region.
Table C4-2: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I&E Everywhere" Option
in the North Atlantic Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish8
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)
b,c
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)
0.0d
o.od
8.2
0.0d
8.2
8.2
8.2
Low
$1.58
$2.91
$1.31
$1.32
Mean
$5.00
$5.02
$2.51
$2.53
High
$15.52
$8.70
$4.82
$4.86
Low
$0.0e
$0.1
$10.7
$0.0e
$10.9
$8.9
$6.9
Mean
$0.1
$0.2
$20.5
$0.0e
$20.8
$17.0
$13.2
High
$0.3
$0.3
$39.4
$0.0e
$40.0
$32.7
$25.3
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
e Denotes a positive value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
APP. C4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix C4
C4-2 Comparison of Recreational Fishing Benefits by Option
Table C4-3 compares the recreational fishing benefits of the several supplemental options.
Table C4-3: Annual Recreational Benefits of the Supplemental Options in the North Atlantic Region
Policy Option
Annual Reduction
in Recreational Fishing
Losses from I&E
(thousands of fish)
Undiscounted Recreational Fishing Benefits
(thousands; 2004$)a
Low
Mean
High
Electric Generators 2-50 MGDb
I-only Everywhere
I&E like Phase II
I&E Everywhere
0.0
0.0
0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Manufacturers 2-50 MGDb
I-only Everywhere
I&E like Phase II
I&E Everywhere
0.0
0.0
0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Manufacturers 50+ MGD
I-only Everywhere0
I&E Everywhere
0.0
8.2
$0.0
$10.9
$0.0
$20.8
$0.0
$40.0
a. These benefit estimates were calculated using the meta-analysis approach discussed in Chapter A5 and Chapter B4.
b No facilities located in the North Atlantic region are electric generators or manufacturers with design intake flows
greater than 2 MGD and less than 50 MGD, so no facilities would have technology requirements under the "Electric
Generators 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option, the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option, the
"Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option, the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option,
the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option, or the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option.
Thus no recreational benefits are expected under these options in the North Atlantic region.
°. No facilities located in the North Atlantic region are manufacturers with design intake flows greater than 50 MGD
that would have technology requirements under the "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere" option. Thus no
recreational benefits are expected under this option in the North Atlantic region.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
APP. C4-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Chapter C5
Chapter C5: Federally Listed T&E Species
in the North Atlantic Region
This chapter lists current federally listed threatened and endangered (T&E) fish and shellfish species in the North
Atlantic Region. This list does not address proposed or candidate species; In addition, fish and shellfish listed as
cave species, marine mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and snails are not included in this chapter.
Table C5-1: Connecticut Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status Scientific Name Common Name
E Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon
E Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedgemussel
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Table C5-2: Maine Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status Scientific Name Common Name
E Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon
E Salmo salar Atlantic salmon (Gulf of Maine Atlantic salmon DPS)
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Table C5-3: Massachusetts Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status Scientific Name Common Name
E Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon
E Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedgemussel
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Table C5-4: New Hampshire Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status Scientific Name Common Name
E Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedgemussel
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
C5-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment
Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Chapter Dl
Chapter Dl: Background
Introduction \~ ~
Chapter Contents
This chapter presents an overview of the potential
Phase III existing facilities in the Mid-Atlantic | DM Facilltv Characteristics Dl-1
study region and summarizes their key cooling
water and compliance characteristics. For further
discussion of the technical and compliance characteristics of potential Phase III existing facilities, refer to the
Economic Analysis for the Final Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities and the Technical Development
Document for the Final Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2006a,c).
Dl-1 Facility Characteristics
The Mid-Atlantic Regional Study includes nine sample facilities that are potentially subject to the national
standards for Phase III existing facilities. Figure Dl-1 presents a map of these facilities. Five of them are
manufacturing facilities and four are electric generators. Industry-wide, these nine sample facilities represent
15 facilities..1.
1 EPA applied sample weights to the survey respondents to account for non-sampled facilities and facilities that did
not respond to the survey. For more information on EPA's 2000 Section 316(b) Industry Survey, please refer to the
Information Collection Request (U.S. EPA, 2000b).
Dl-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Chapter Dl
Figure Dl-1: Potential Existing Phase III Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Regional Study"
Potential Phase III Existing Facilities (Count)
O Electric Generating Facility (4)
% Manufacturing Facility (5)
Mid-Atlantic Region with Counties
Atlantic Ocean
0 30 60 Miles
a. The map includes locations of sample facilities only.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Dl-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Chapter Dl
Table Dl-1 summarizes key technical and compliance characteristics for all potentially regulated Phase III
existing facilities in the Mid-Atlantic study region for the regulatory options considered by EPA for this rule (the
"50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, and the "100 MOD for
Certain Waterbodies" option). Facilities with a design intake flow below the three applicability thresholds would
be subject to permitting based on best professional judgment and are excluded from EPA's analyses.2 Therefore,
a different number of facilities is affected under each option.
Table Dl-1 shows that 15 Phase III existing facilities in the Mid-Atlantic study region would potentially be
subject to the national requirements. Under the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the most inclusive of the
regulatory options, three facilities would be subject to the national requirements for Phase III existing facilities.
Under the less inclusive "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option and "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies" option,
two facilities would be subject to the national requirements. Two facilities in the Mid-Atlantic study region have a
recirculating system in the baseline.
Table Dl-1: Technical and Compliance Characteristics of Existing Phase III Facilities (sample-weighted)
Total Number of Facilities (sample-weighted)
Number of Facilities with Recirculating System in Baseline
Design Intake Flow (MGD)
Number of Facilities by Compliance Response
Fine mesh traveling screens with fish H&R
New larger intake structure with fine mesh and fish H&R
Passive fine mesh screens
None
Compliance Cost, Discounted at 3%b
Compliance Cost, Discounted at 7%b
All Potentially
Regulated
Facilities
15
2
982
1
1
2
11
$2.68
$2.54
Regulatory Options
50 MGD
All
3
200 MGD 100 MGD
All CWB
2 2
.
wa
1
1
1
$1.22
$1.18
wa wa
1 1
1 1
$0.80 $0.80
$0.74 $0.74
a. Data withheld because of confidentiality reasons.
Annualized pre-tax compliance cost (2004$, millions).
Sources: U.S. EPA, 2000b; U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Also excluded are facilities that are estimated to be baseline closures. For additional information on EPA's
baseline closure analyses, please refer to the Economic Analysis for the Final Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III
Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2006a).
Dl-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix Dl
Appendix Dl: Life History Parameter Values
Used to Evaluate I&E in the
Mid-Atlantic Region
The tables in this appendix present the life history parameter values used by EPA to calculate age-1 equivalents
and fishery yields from impingement and entrainment (I&E) data for the Mid-Atlantic region. Because of
differences in the number of life stages represented in the loss data, there are cases where more than one life stage
sequence was needed for a given species or species group. Alternative parameter sets were developed for this
purpose and are indicated with a number following the species or species group name (i.e., Alewife 1, Alewife 2).
Table Dl-1: Alewife Life History Parameters 1
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Stage Name (M)
Eggs
Yolks ac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
0.554
1.81
1.72
3.11
3.11
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.900
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.45
0.9
1
1
1
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.000000728
0.00000335
0.000746
0.0155
0.0303
0.125
0.254
0.379
0.485
0.565
0.625
0.666
Source: PSE&G, 1999.
App. Dl-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-2: Alewife Life History Parameters 2
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Source: PSE&G,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.554
3.53
6.21
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.900
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1999.
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.45
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0303
0.125
0.254
0.379
0.485
0.565
0.625
0.666
Table Dl-3: American Shad Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolks ac larvae
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.496
0.496
Post-yolksac larvae 2.52
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Sources: USFWS,
7.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.54
1.02
1.5
1.5
1.5
1978; Able and Fahay,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
1998; PSE&G, 1999;
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.45
0.90
1.0
1.0
1.0
andFroese andPauly,
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.000000728
0.00000335
0.000746
0.309
1.17
2.32
3.51
4.56
5.47
6.20
6.77
2001.
App. Dl-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-4: Atlantic Croaker Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.817
3.27
Post-yolksac larvae 4.90
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Source: PSE&G,
1.18
2.20
1.09
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
1999.
Parameters 1
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000128
0.0000000441
0.000000246
0.0000120
0.000113
0.220
0.672
1.24
1.88
2.43
3.26
3.26
3.26
Table Dl-5: Atlantic Croaker Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Source: PSE&G,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.817
8.10
3.38
1.09
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
1999.
Parameters 2
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000128
0.000000145
0.0000624
0.220
0.672
1.24
1.88
2.43
3.26
3.26
3.26
App. Dl-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix Dl
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolks ac larvae
Table Dl-6: Atlantic
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.08
2.85
Post-yolksac larvae 2.85
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
2.85
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
Menhaden Life History Parameters 1
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbinet al, 1983; Ruppert et al, 1985
Company, 2000; ASMFC, 200 Ib; andFroese andPauly, 2001.
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
'; Entergy Nuclear
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.000000728
0.00000335
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
Generation
Table Dl-7: Atlantic Menhaden Life History Parameters 2
Stage Name
Eggs
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.07
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
Larvae
5.71
0.00000204
Juvenile
2.85
0.000746
Age 1+
0.45
0.0937
Age 2+
0.45
0.50
0.356
Age 3+
0.45
1.0
0.679
Age 4+
0.45
1.0
0.974
Age 5+
0.45
1.0
1.21
Age 6+
0.45
1.0
1.38
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbin et al, 1983; Ruppert et al., 1985; Entergy Nuclear Generation
Company, 2000; ASMFC, 200Ib; andFroese andPauly, 2001.
APP. Dl-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-8: Atlantic Tomcod Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(M) (F) Fishery
8.46 0 0
8.46 0 0
8.46 0 0
8.46 0 0
2.83 0 0
2.83 0 0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000126
0.0000185
0.0145
0.080
0.270
0.486
Sources: Stewart and Auster, 1987; McLaren etal, 1988;. Virginia Tech, 1998; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table Dl-9: Bay Anchovy Life History Parameters 1
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Juvenile 3
Juvenile 4
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Sources: Derickson
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(M) (F) Fishery
1.04 0 0
1.57 0 0
1 2.11 0 0
2 4.02 0 0
0.0822 0 0
0.0861 0 0
0.129 0 0
0.994 0 0
1.62 0 0
1.62 0 0
1.62 0 0
and Price, 1973; PSE&G, 1999; andNMFS, 2003a.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000186
0.0000000441
0.0000000929
0.00000461
0.0000495
0.000199
0.000532
0.00114
0.00381
0.00496
0.00505
Table Dl-10: Bay Anchovy Life History Parameters 2
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Sources: Derickson
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(M) (F) Fishery
1.04 0 0
7.70 0 0
1.29 0 0
1.62 0 0
1.62 0 0
1.62 0 0
and Price, 1973; PSE&G, 1999; andNMFS, 2003a.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000186
0.00000158
0.000481
0.00381
0.00496
0.00505
App. Dl-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-11: Bay Anchovy Life History Parameters 3
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Sources: Derickson
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.04
1.57
6.12
1.29
1.62
1.62
1.62
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
and Price, 1973; PSE&G, 1999; andNMFS,
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003a.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000186
0.0000000441
0.00000235
0.000481
0.00381
0.00496
0.00505
Table Dl-12: Blue Crab Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Megalops
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Sources: Hartman,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.30
1.73
1.10
1.38
1.27
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0.5
1
1
1
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000291
0.00000293
0.007
0.113
0.326
1993; and PSE&G, 1999.
Table Dl-13: Blueback Herring Life History Parameters 1
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.558
1.83
1.74
3.13
3.13
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.900
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.000000728
0.00000335
0.000746
0.00836
0.0160
0.0905
0.204
0.318
0.414
0.488
0.540
0.576
Sources: PSE&G, 1999; andNMFS, 2003a.
App. Dl-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-14: Blueback Herring Life History Parameters 2
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Sources: PSE&G,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.558
3.18
6.26
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.900
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0160
0.0905
0.204
0.318
0.414
0.488
0.540
0.576
1999; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table Dl-15: Hogchoker Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.04
5.20
2.31
2.56
0.705
0.705
0.705
0.705
0.705
Sources: PG&E National Energy Group,
Parameters
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001; Froese andPauly,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003; andNMFS,
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000487
0.00110
0.00207
0.0113
0.0313
0.0610
0.0976
0.138
0.178
2003a.
App. Dl-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-16: Naked Goby Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.288
4.09
2.30
2.55
Sources: PG&E National Energy Group,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000370
0.000221
0.000485
0.00205
2001; andFroese andPauly, 2003.
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolks ac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 1 1+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Table Dl-17:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.825
3.30
4.12
1.58
0.99
0.463
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
Spot Life History
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.247
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
Parameters 1
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.30
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000131
0.000000154
0.000000854
0.0000226
0.000220
0.0791
0.299
0.507
0.648
0.732
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
Sources: Schwartz et al, 1979; and PSE&G, 1984, 1999.
App. Dl-8
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix Dl
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Table Dl-18:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.825
7.40
2.57
0.463
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
Spot Life History Parameters 2
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000131
0.000000504
0.000121
0.0791
0.299
0.507
0.648
0.732
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
Sources: Schwartz et al, 1979; andPSE&G, 1984, 1999.
App. Dl-9
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-19: Striped
Bass Life History Parameters 1
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
Stage Name (M) (F)
Eggs
Yolks ac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Sources: Bason, 1971;
1.39
2.22
5.11
2.28
1.00
1.10
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
andPSE&G, 1999.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.06
0.20
0.63
0.94
1.0
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000224
0.000000243
0.0000119
0.000154
0.0216
0.485
2.06
3.31
4.93
6.50
8.58
12.3
14.3
16.1
18.8
19.6
22.4
27.0
34.6
41.5
App.Dl-10
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-20: Striped Bass Life History Parameters 2
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Sources: Bason,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.39
7.32
3.29
1.10
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
1971; andPSE&G, 1999.
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.06
0.20
0.63
0.94
1.0
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000224
0.00000606
0.0109
0.485
2.06
3.31
4.93
6.5
8.58
12.3
14.3
16.1
18.8
19.6
22.4
27
34.6
41.5
App. Dl-11
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-21: Striped
Bass Life History Parameters 3
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
Stage Name (M) (F)
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Sources: Bason, 1971;
1.39
2.22
5.11
3.29
1.10
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
andPSE&G, 1999.
0
0
0
0
0
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.06
0.20
0.63
0.94
1.0
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000224
0.000000243
0.0000119
0.248
0.485
2.06
3.31
4.93
6.50
8.58
12.3
14.3
16.1
18.8
19.6
22.4
27
34.6
41.5
App. Dl-12
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-22: Summer Flounder Life
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.288
4.37
2.38
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
History Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000109
0.00000532
0.208
0.919
1.02
2.50
3.56
5.09
5.83
6.64
8.16
9.90
11.9
14.1
16.6
19.4
22.5
Sources: Wang andKernehan, 1979; Grimes et al, 1989; Packer et al, 1999; Boh et al, 2000; NOAA,
2001b; PG&E National Energy Group, 2001; andFroese andPauly, 2003.
APP. Dl-13
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-23: Weakfish Life History Parameters 1
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
Stage Name (M) (F)
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Sources: Thomas, 1971;
1.04
1.34
6.33
2.44
1.48
0.349
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
andPSE&G, 1999.
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.10
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000787
0.0000000882
0.000000382
0.0000184
0.0502
0.260
0.680
1.12
1.79
2.91
6.21
7.14
9.16
10.8
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
App. Dl-14
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-24: Weakfish Life History Parameters 2
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Sources: Thomas,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.04
7.70
3.92
0.349
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.10
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000787
0.000000235
0.0251
0.260
0.680
1.12
1.79
2.91
6.21
7.14
9.16
10.8
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
1971; andPSE&G, 1999.
App. Dl-15
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-25: White Perch Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Sources: Horseman
Parameters 1
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(M) (F) Fishery
2.75
2.10
3.27
0.947
0.759
0.693
0.693
0.693
0.689
1.58
1.54
1.48
1.46
1.46
1.46
and Shir ey, 1974;
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
andPSE&G, 1999.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00080
0.027
0.21
0.48
0.84
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000330
0.000000353
0.00000507
0.000317
0.00486
0.0198
0.0567
0.103
0.150
0.214
0.265
0.356
0.387
0.516
0.619
Table Dl-26: White Perch Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Sources: Horseman
Parameters 2
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(M) (F) Fishery
2.75
5.37
1.71
0.693
0.693
0.693
0.689
1.58
1.54
1.48
1.46
1.46
1.46
andShirey, 1974;
0
0
0
0
0
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
• andPSE&G, 1999.
0
0
0
0
0
0.00080
0.027
0.21
0.48
0.84
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000330
0.00000271
0.00259
0.0198
0.0567
0.103
0.150
0.214
0.265
0.356
0.387
0.516
0.619
App.Dl-16
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-27: White Perch Life History Parameters 3
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Sources: Horseman
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(M) (F) Fishery
2.75
2.10
3.27
1.71
0.693
0.693
0.693
0.689
1.58
1.54
1.48
1.46
1.46
1.46
andShirey, 1974;
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
andPSE&G, 1999.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00080
0.027
0.21
0.48
0.84
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000330
0.000000353
0.00000507
0.00259
0.0198
0.0567
0.103
0.150
0.214
0.265
0.356
0.387
0.516
0.619
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Table Dl-28:
Windowpane Life History
Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(M) (F) Fishery
1.41
6.99
2.98
0.420
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000154
0.00165
0.00223
0.0325
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.25
0.61
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.122
0.265
0.433
0.603
0.761
0.899
1.02
1.11
1.19
Sources: Hendrickson, 2000; PG&E National Energy Group, 2001; USGen New England, 2001; and
Froese andPauly, 2003.
App.Dl-17
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-29: Winter
Flounder Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
Stage Name (M) (F)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Sources: Able
Group, 2001.
0.288
4.37
2.38
1.10
0.924
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
and F ahoy, 1998; Colarusso,
0
0
0
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
2000; Nitschke et al.
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.01
0.29
0.80
0.92
0.83
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.0138
0.0330
0.208
0.562
0.997
1.42
1.78
2.07
2.29
2.45
2.57
2.65
2.71
2.75
2.78
2.80
2.82
2.83
, 2000; and PG&E National Energy
App. Dl-18
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-30: Other Commercial Species Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.08
5.71
2.85
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
a. Includes American butterfish, American eel, brown bullhead, channel catfish, conger eel, gizzard
shad, harvestfish, silver hake, white catfish, and yellow perch.
Sources: Durbin etal, 1983; Able andFahay, 1998; andPSE&G, 1999.
Table Dl-31: Other Recreational Species Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.08
5.71
2.85
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
a. Includes black drum, black sea bass, bluefish, northern puffer, northern searobin, orange filefish,
oyster toadfish, sea lamprey, spotted hake, and spotted searrout.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbin etal, 1983; Ruppertetal., 1985; Able andFahay, 1998; PSE&G,
1999; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; andASMFC, 200Ib.
APP. Dl-19
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-32:
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Other Recreational
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.08
2.85
2.85
1.43
1.43
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
and Commercial
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
Species Life History
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Parameters"
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.000000728
0.00000335
0.000746
0.0472
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
a. Includes species designated as other commercial from Salem.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbinet al, 1983; Ruppert et al, 1985; Able andFahay, 1998; PSE&G,
1999; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; andASMFC, 200Ib.
Table Dl-33: Other Forage Species Life History Parameters 1".
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
Stage Name (M) (F)
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae 1
Post-yolksac larvae 2
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Juvenile 3
Juvenile 4
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
1.04
1.57
2.11
4.02
0.0822
0.0861
0.129
0.994
1.62
1.62
1.62
a. Includes species designated as other forage from
Sources: Derickson and Price, 1973; and PSE&G,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Salem.
1999.
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000186
0.0000000441
0.0000000929
0.00000461
0.0000495
0.000199
0.000532
0.001161
0.00381
0.00496
0.00505
App. Dl-20
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-34: Other Forage Species Life History Parameters 2".
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.04
7.70
1.29
1.62
1.62
1.62
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000186
0.00000158
0.000481
0.00381
0.00496
0.00505
a. Includes Atlantic herring, Atlantic needlefish, Atlantic silverside, banded killifish, blackcheek
tonguefish, bluegill, chain pickerel, fourspine stickleback, golden shiner, inland silverside, inshore
lizardfish, lined seahorse, mississippi silvery minnow, mud minnow, mummichog, northern pipefish,
northern stargazer, pumpkinseed, sheepshead minnow, skilletfish, spottail shiner, spotted codling,
striped anchovy, striped blenny, striped killifish, threespine stickleback, and other organisms not
identified to species.
Sources: Derickson and Price, 1973; andPSE&G, 1999.
Table Dl-35: Other Forage Species Life History Parameters 3".
Stage Name
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to Weight
(M) (F) Fishery (Ibs)
Eggs
1.04
0
0
Yolksac larvae
1.57
Post-yolksac larvae
6.10
Juvenile
1.29
Age 1+
1.62
Age 2+
1.62
Age 3+
1.62
0
0
0.0000000186
0.0000000441
0.00000662
0.000481
0.00381
0.00496
0.00505
a Includes inland silverside, river herring, and silversides not identified to species.
Sources: Derickson and Price, 1973; andPSE&G, 1999.
APP. Dl-21
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Chapter D2
Chapter D2: Evaluation of Impingement and
Entrainment in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Chapter Contents
Background: Mid-Atlantic Marine
Fisheries
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
(MAFMC) manages fisheries in Federal waters off
the Mid-Atlantic coast. The individual states control
waters within three miles. States with voting
representation on the MAFMC include New York,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, and North Carolina. North Carolina is
represented on both the MAFMC and the South
Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
The MAFMC has fishery management plans in
place for Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus),
squid (Loligo pealeii andlllex illecebrosus), butterfish (Peprilus triaccmthus), Atlantic surf clam (Spisula
solidissima), ocean quahog (Arctica islandicd), Atlantic bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), summer flounder
(Paralichthys dentatus), scup (Stenotomus chrysops), black sea bass (Centropristis striatd), and monkfish
(Lophius americanus). Mid-Atlantic groundfish fisheries are primarily for summer flounder, scup, goosefish
(Lophius americanus), and black seabass (NMFS, 1999a). Summer flounder is one of the most valuable
groundfish species in the region, and is targeted by both recreational and commercial fishers (NMFS, 1999a).
D2-1
D2-2
D2-3
D2-4
D2-5
I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated D2-1
I&E Data Evaluated D2-3
EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at
Phase III Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic
Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents
and Foregone Yield D2-4
Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities
in the Mid-Atlantic Region Under
Alternative Options D2-8
Assumptions Used in Calculating
Recreational and Commercial Losses D2-8
D2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated
Table D2-1 provides a list of species/species groups in the Mid-Atlantic region that are subject to impingement
and entrainment (I&E) and the species groups that were evaluated in EPA's analysis of regional I&E.
Table D2-1: Species/Species Groups Evaluated by EPA that are Subject to
I&E in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Species/Species Group
Alewife
American shad
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic herring
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic silverside
Atlantic tomcod
Bay anchovy
Black crappie
Black drum
Recreational
X
X
X
X
Commercial
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Forage
X
X
X
X
X
D2-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Chapter D2
Table D2-1: Species/Species Groups Evaluated by EPA that are Subject to
I&E in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Species/Species Group
Blue crab
Blueback herring
Bluefish
Bluegill
Bluntnose minnow
Brown bullhead
Bullhead species
Butterfish
Carp
Chain pipefish
Channel catfish
Crabs (commercial)
Crappie
Gunner
Darter species
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
Gobies
Grubby
Herrings
Hogchoker
Menhaden species
Muskellunge
Northern pipefish
Other (commercial)
Other (forage)
Other (recreational and commercial)
Other (recreational)
Rainbow smelt
Red drum
Red hake
Scup
Seaboard goby
Searobin
Shiner species
Silver hake
Silver perch
Silversides
Recreational
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Commercial
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Forage
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D2-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Chapter D2
Table D2-1: Species/Species Groups Evaluated by EPA that are Subject to
I&E in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Species/Species Group
Smallmouth bass
Spot
Spotted seatrout
Striped bass
Striped killifish
Striped mullet
Sucker species
Summer flounder
Sunfish
Tautog
Threespine stickleback
Weakfish
White perch
Whitefish
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Yellow perch
Recreational
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Commercial
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Forage
X
X
X
X
The life history data used in EPA's analysis and associated data sources are provided in Appendix Dl of this
report.
D2-2 I&E Data Evaluated
Table D2-2 lists the facility I&E data evaluated by EPA to estimate current I&E rates for the Mid-Atlantic
Region. See Chapter A1 of Part A for a discussion of methods used to extrapolate I&E data from these model
facilities to Phase III facilities in the Mid-Atlantic without I&E data.
Table D2-2: Facility I&E Data Evaluated for the Mid-Atlantic Region Analysis
Facility
Baltimore Resco
Bayway Refinery Company (NJ)
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear (MD)
Chalk Point (MD)
Gould Street
Indian Point Nuclear (NY)
Indian River (DE)
Morgantown (MD)
Phase
II
III
II
II
II
II
II
II
Years of Data
1985
1975-1994
1975-1995
1976-1979
1979
1981-1990
1975-1976
1976
D2-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Chapter D2
Table D2-2: Facility I&E Data Evaluated for the Mid-Atlantic Region Analysis
Facility Phase Years of Data
Motiva Enterprises LLC — Delaware m , qqs , qqq
City Refinery 1W8-1W*
Riverside II 1979
Salem Nuclear (NJ) II 1978-1998
Yorktown II 1977
D2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Yield
Table D2-3 provides EPA's estimate of the annual age-1 equivalents and foregone fishery yield resulting from the
impingement of aquatic species at facilities located in the Mid-Atlantic region. Table D2-4 displays this
information for entrainment. Note that in these tables, "total yield" includes direct losses of harvested species and
the yield of harvested species that is lost due to losses of forage species (trophic transfer).
Table D2-3: Estimated Current Annual Impingement at Phase III Facilities
in the Mid-Atlantic Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone
Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Alewife
American shad
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic herring
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic silverside
Atlantic tomcod
Bay anchovy
Black crappie
Black drum
Blue crab
Blueback herring
Bluefish
Bluegill
Blunrnose minnow
Brown bullhead
Bullhead species
Butterfish
Carp
Chain pipefish
Channel catfish
Crabs (commercial)
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
323
15
25,400
1
2,150,000
26
6
967,000
1
69
142,000
1,270
16
2
1
957
957
160
7
465
113
1,760
Total Yield
(Ibs)
2
4
5,230
<1
425,000
<1
<1
<1
<1
312
1,310
<1
26
<1
<1
79
79
5
<1
<1
23
16
D2-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Chapter D2
Table D2-3: Estimated Current Annual Impingement at Phase III Facilities
in the Mid-Atlantic Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone
Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
Total Yield
(Ibs)
Crappie <1 <1
Gunner
Darter species
1
2
<1
<1
Freshwater drum <1 <1
Gizzard shad
Gobies
Grubby
Herrings
Hogchoker
39,400
19
26
1
49,700
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
Menhaden species <1 <1
Muskellunge <1 <1
Northern pipefish
Other (commercial)
Other (forage)
Other (recreational and commercial)
Other (recreational)
Rainbow smelt
Red drum
Red hake
Scup
Seaboard goby
Searobin
Shiner species
Silver hake
Silver perch
Silversides
Smallmouth bass
Spot
Spotted seatrout
Striped bass
Striped killifish
Striped mullet
Sucker species
Summer flounder
Sunfish
3,130
38,400
322,000
29,000
2,750
12
941
245
1
273
241
3,260
78
329
27
117
274,000
369
352
25,900
73
1
2,200
193
<1
7,590
<1
5,720
542
<1
4,240
75
<1
<1
9
<1
10
<1
<1
5
30,600
330
492
<1
35
<1
3,110
<1
Tautog <1 <1
Threespine stickleback
89
<1
D2-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Chapter D2
Table D2-3: Estimated Current Annual Impingement at Phase III Facilities
in the Mid-Atlantic Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone
Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Trophic transfer3
Weakfish
White perch
Whitefish
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Yellow perch
a Contribution of forage fish to yield
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
<1
23,400
184,000
69
156
1,680
166
based on trophic transfer
Total Yield
(Ibs)
619
18,400
81
62
3
202
2
(see Chapter Al).
Table D2-4: Estimated Current Annual Entrainment at Phase III
Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Fishery Yield
Age-1 Equivalents Total Yield
Species/Species Group (#s) (Ibs)
Alewife 39 <1
American shad 148 36
Atlantic croaker 196,000 40,400
Atlantic herring <1 <1
Atlantic menhaden 78,400 15,500
Atlantic silverside <1 <1
Atlantic tomcod <1 <1
Bay anchovy 77,100,000 <1
Black crappie <1 <1
Black drum <1 <1
Blue crab 2,690,000 24,900
Blueback herring 169 <1
Bluefish <1 <1
Bluegill <1 <1
Bluntnose minnow <1 <1
Brown bullhead <1 <1
Bullhead species <1 <1
Butterfish <1 <1
Carp <1 <1
Chain pipefish <1 <1
Channel catfish <1 <1
Crabs (commercial) <1 <1
Crappie <1 <1
D2-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Chapter D2
Table D2-4: Estimated Current Annual Entrainment at Phase III
Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Fishery Yield
Age-1 Equivalents Total Yield
Species/Species Group (#s) (Ibs)
Gunner <1 <1
Darter species <1 <1
Freshwater drum <1 <1
Gizzard shad <1 <1
Gobies 1,320 <1
Grubby 5 <1
Herrings <1 <1
Hogchoker 30,400 <1
Menhaden species 79 16
Muskellunge <1 <1
Northern pipefish 8,830 <1
Other (commercial) 1,450 287
Other (forage) 320,000 <1
Other (recreational and commercial) 73,500 14,500
Other (recreational) <1 <1
Rainbow smelt <1 <1
Red drum <1 <1
Red hake <1 <1
Scup <1 <1
Seaboard goby 1,260,000 <1
Searobin 1 <1
Shiner species 113 <1
Silver hake <1 <1
Silver perch <1 <1
Silversides <1 <1
Smallmouth bass <1 <1
Spot 189,000 21,200
Spotted seatrout <1 <1
Striped bass 20,300 28,300
Striped killifish <1 <1
Striped mullet <1 <1
Sucker species <1 <1
Summer flounder <1 <1
Sunfish <1 <1
Tautog <1 <1
Threespine stickleback <1 <1
Trophic transfer3 <1 4,110
D2-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Chapter D2
Table D2-4: Estimated Current Annual Entrainment at Phase III
Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Weakfish
White perch
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
36,400
115,000
Total Yield
(Ibs)
28,700
51
Whitefish <1 <1
Windowpane <1 <1
Winter flounder
Yellow perch
a Contribution of forage fish to
5,280
32
yield based on trophic transfer
569
<1
(see Chapter Al).
D2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region Under
Alternative Options
Table D2-5 presents estimated reductions in I&E under the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option, the
"200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option, and the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option. Reductions under
all other options are presented in Appendix D2.
Table D2-5: Estimated Reductions in I&E Under Alternative Options
Age-One Equivalents Foregone Fishery Yield
Option (#s) (Ibs)
50 MGD All Option 44,500,000 212,000
200 MGD All Option 39,400,000 163,000
100 MGD Option 39,400,000 163,000
D2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating Recreational and Commercial Losses
The lost yield estimates presented in Tables D2-3 and D2-4 are expressed as total pounds and include losses to
both commercial and recreational catch. To estimate the economic value of these losses, total yield was
partitioned between commercial and recreational fisheries based on the landings in each fishery. Table D2-6
presents the percentage impacts assumed for each species/species group.
See Chapter D3 for results of the commercial fishing benefits analysis and Chapter D4 for recreational fishing
results. As discussed in Chapter A8, benefits were discounted to account for (1) the time to achieve compliance
once a Phase III final regulation for existing facilities would have become effective, and (2) the time it takes for
fish spared from I&E to reach a harvestable age.
D2-8
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Chapter D2
Table D2-6: Percentage of Total Impacts Occurring to the Commercial and Recreational
Fisheries and Commercial Value per Pound for Species Impinged and Entrained at
Mid-Atlantic Facilities
Species/Species Group
Alewife
American plaice
American shad
Atlantic cod
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic herring
Atlantic mackerel
Atlantic menhaden
Bigmouth buffalo
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Black drum
Blue crab
Bluefish
Bluegill
Brown bullhead
Bullhead species
Butterfish
Channel catfish
Crabs (commercial)
Crappie
Gunner
Darter species
Drums and croakers
Flounders
Freshwater drum
Golden redhorse
Leatherjacket
Logperch
Mackerels
Menhaden species
Muskellunge
Other (commercial)
Other (recreational and commercial)
Other (recreational)
Paddlefish
Pinfish
Pink shrimp
Pollock
Percent Impact to
Recreational Fishery
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
66.4%
19.0%
22.2%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
93.0%
0.0%
89.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
69.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
73.5%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
50.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50.0%
Percent Impact to
a'b Commercial Fishery8'"
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50.0%
33.6%
81.0%
77.8%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
7.0%
100.0%
10.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
30.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
26.5%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
D2-9
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Chapter D2
Table D2-6: Percentage of Total Impacts Occurring to the Commercial and Recreational
Fisheries and Commercial Value per Pound for Species Impinged and Entrained at
Mid-Atlantic Facilities
Percent Impact to Percent Impact to
Species/Species Group Recreational Fisherya'b Commercial Fisherya'b
Red drum
Red hake
River carpsucker
Salmon
S auger
Sculpins
Scup
Searobin
Sheepshead
Silver hake
Silver perch
Skate species
Smallmouth bass
Smelts
Spot
Spotted seatrout
Spotted sucker
Stone crab
Striped bass
Striped mullet
Sturgeon species
Sucker species
Summer flounder
Sunfish
Tautog
Trophic transfer."1.
Walleye
Weakfish
White bass
White perch
Whitefish
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Yellow perch
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
79.0%
50.0%
83.9%
67.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
52.4%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
95.5%
10.1%
100.0%
100.0%
88.0%
100.0%
92.2%
69.0%
100.0%
77.2%
100.0%
66.0%
100.0%
0.0%
63.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
21.0%
50.0%
16.1%
33.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
47.6%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
4.5%
89.9%
0.0%
0.0%
12.0%
0.0%
7.8%
31.0%
0.0%
22.8%
0.0%
34.0%
0.0%
100.0%
37.0%
0.0%
a Based on landings from 1993 to 2001.
b Calculated using recreational landings data from NMFS (2003b,
..http://www.st.nmfs.gov/recreational/queries/catch/snapshot.htmL) and commercial landings data
from NMFS (2003a, ..http://www.st.nmfs.gov/commercial/landings/annual landings.html).
°. Assumed equally likely to be caught by recreational or commercial fishers. Commercial value
calculated as overall average for region based on data from NMFS (2003a).
d Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
D2-10
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix D2
Appendix D2: Reductions in I&E Under
Supplemental Policy Options
Table D2-1: Estimated Reductions in I&E in the
Mid-Atlantic Region Under Supplemental Options
Option
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
Foregone Fishery Yield
(Ibs)
I-only Everywhere
I&E like Phase II
I&E Everywhere
Electric Generators 2-50 MGD
26,600 3,120
26,600 3,120
1,480,000 6,280
I-only Everywhere
I&E like Phase II
I&E Everywhere
Manufacturers 2-50 MGD
150,000 17,700
2,310,000 22,400
2,310,000 22,400
I-only Everywhere
I&E Everywhere
Manufacturers 50+ MGD
1,000,000 118,000
44,500,000 212,000
App. D2-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Chapter D3
Chapter D3: Commercial Fishing Benefits
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the commercial
fishing benefits analysis for the Mid-Atlantic region.
The chapter presents EPA's estimates of baseline
(i.e., current) annual commercial fishery losses from
impingement and entrainment (I&E) at potentially
regulated facilities in the Mid-Atlantic region and
annual reductions in these losses under the
regulatory options for Phase III existing facilities.1.:
» the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option,
»• the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option,
and
> the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies"
option.
Chapter Contents
D3-1 Baseline Commercial Losses D3-1
D3-2 Expected Benefits Under Regulatory
Analysis Options D3-3
D3-2.1 Commercial Fishing Benefits of
the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies"
Option D3-4
D3-2.2 Commercial Fishing Benefits of
the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies"
Option D3-4
D3-2.3 Commercial Fishing Benefits of
the "100 MOD for Certain
Waterbodies" Option D3-5
The chapter then presents the estimated benefits to commercial fisheries from eliminating baseline losses from
I&E, and the expected benefits under the regulatory options.
Chapter A4, "Methods for Estimating Commercial Fishing Benefits," details the methods used by EPA to
estimate the commercial fishing benefits of reducing and eliminating I&E losses.
EPA considered a wide range of policy options in developing this regulation. In addition to the regulatory options,
EPA evaluated several supplemental options. Appendix D3 presents results of the commercial fishing benefits
analysis for the supplemental options. For more information on the options, please see the TDD.
D3-1 Baseline Commercial Losses
Table D3-1 provides EPA's estimate of the value of gross revenues lost in commercial fisheries resulting from the
impingement of aquatic species at facilities in the Mid-Atlantic region. Table D3-2 displays this information for
entrainment. Total annualized revenue losses are approximately $89,236 (undiscounted).
See the Introduction to this report for a description of the primary analysis options.
D3-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Chapter D3
Table D3-1: Annualized Commercial Fishing Gross Revenues Lost due
to Impingement at Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Species"
American shad
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic menhaden
Black drum
Blue crab
Bluefish
Butterfish
Commercial Crabs
Otherb
Other0
Red hake
Silver hake
Spot
Striped bass
Striped mullet
Summer flounder
Weakfish
White perch
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Trophic transfer."1.
Total
Estimated
Pounds of
Harvest Lost
4
1,759
424,650
22
1,313
3
5
16
7,592
2,859
75
10
14,596
22
31
373
4,193
28
3
75
192
457,821
Commercial
Value per
Pound
(2004$)
$0.64
$0.34
$0.07
$0.70
$0.80
$0.30
$0.62
$0.57
$0.56
$0.56
$0.23
$0.40
$0.45
$1.78
$0.71
$1.62
$0.69
$0.63
$0.39
$1.25
$0.42
Estimated Value
of Harvest Lost
(2004$)
Undiscounted
$2
$602
$29,444
$15
$1,045
$1
$3
$9
$4,238
$1,596
$18
$4
$6,586
$40
$22
$604
$2,892
$17
$1
$94
$81
$47,314
a. Species included are only those that have baseline losses greater than $1.
b Includes only species that are commercially, but not recreationally, fished.
°. Includes species that are both commercially and recreationally fished.
d Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter
Al).
D3-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Chapter D3
Table D3-2: Annualized Commercial Fishing Gross Revenues Lost due
to Entrainment at Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Species"
American shad
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic menhaden
Blue crab
Otherb
Other0
Spot
Striped bass
Weakfish
White perch
Winter flounder
Trophic transfer."1.
Total
Estimated
Pounds of
Harvest Lost
36
13,599
15,491
24,865
287
7,262
10,108
1,283
6,523
17
211
1,274
80,956
Commercial
Value per
Pound
(2004$)
$0.64
$0.34
$0.07
$0.80
$0.56
$0.56
$0.45
$1.78
$0.69
$0.63
$1.25
$0.42
Estimated Value
of Harvest Lost
(2004$)
Undiscounted
$23
$4,655
$1,074
$19,796
$160
$4,054
$4,561
$2,281
$4,499
$11
$264
$539
$41,917
a. Species included are only those that have baseline losses greater than $1.
b Includes only species that are commercially, but not recreationally, fished.
°. Include species that are both commercially and recreationally fished.
d Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter
Al).
D3-2 Expected Benefits Under Regulatory Analysis Options
As described in Chapter A4, EPA estimates for Mid-Atlantic that, depending on species, 0 to 84% of the gross
revenue losses represent surplus losses to producers, assuming no change in prices or fishing costs. Earlier EPA
analysis assumed a rate of 40%. The 0% estimate, of course, results in loss estimates of $0.
The expected reductions in I&E attributable to changes at facilities required by the "50 MGD for All
Waterbodies" option (50 MGD All option) are 23.4% for impingement and 52.9% for entrainment; the expected
reductions for the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option (200 MGD All option) are 15.6% for impingement and
47.1% for entrainment; and the expected reductions for the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option
(100 MGD CWB option) are 15.6% for impingement 47.1% for entrainment. Total annualized benefits are
estimated by applying these estimated reductions to the annual baseline producer surplus loss. As presented in
Tables D3-3, D3-4, and D3-5, this results in total annualized benefits of up to approximately $18,387 for the
50 MGD All option, $14,848 forthe 200 MGD All option, and $14,848 for the 100 MGD CWB option, assuming
a 3% discount rate and a species-specific net benefits ratio.-2.
.. The net benefits ratio is the fractional share of gross revenue associated with net benefits, by gear and vessel type.
See Chapter A4, section A4-10, for a description of the species-specific net benefits ratios and how they are calculated.
D3-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Chapter D3
D3-2.1 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table D3-3 shows EPA's analysis of the commercial benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option for
the Mid-Atlantic region. The table shows that this option, assuming a species-specific net benefits ratio, will result
in undiscounted total annualized commercial benefits of approximately $22,630. When evaluated at 3% and 7%
discount rates, the annualized commercial benefits are $18,387 and $14,105, respectively.
Table D3-3: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to
the 50 MGD All Option at Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region (2004$)a
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $47,318 $41,918 $89,236
Producer surplus lost — 0% $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $33,502 $27,952 $61,454
Expected reduction due to rule 23.4% 52.9%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $22,630
3% discount rate $18,387
7% discount rate $14,105
a. Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter II for a timeline of benefits.
D3-2.2 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table D3-4 shows EPA's analysis of the commercial benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option for
the Mid-Atlantic region. The table shows that this option, assuming a species-specific net benefits ratio, will result
in undiscounted total annualized commercial benefits of approximately $18,411. When evaluated at 3% and
7% discount rates, the annualized commercial benefits are $14,848 and $11,273, respectively.
D3-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Chapter D3
Table D3-4: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to
the 200 MGD All Option at Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region (2004$)."
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $47,318 $41,918 $89,236
Producer surplus lost — 0% $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $33,502 $27,952 $61,454
Expected reduction due to rule 15.6% 47.1%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $18,411
3% discount rate $14,848
7% discount rate $11,273
a. Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter II for a timeline of benefits.
D3-2.3 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
Table D3-5 shows EPA's analysis of the commercial benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option
for the Mid-Atlantic region. The table shows that this option, assuming a species-specific net benefits ratio, will
result in undiscounted total annualized commercial benefits of approximately $18,411. When evaluated at 3% and
7% discount rates, the annualized commercial benefits are $14,848 and $11,273, respectively.
Table D3-5: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to
the 100 MGD CWB Option at Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region (2004$)a
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $47,318 $41,918 $89,236
Producer surplus lost — 0% $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $33,502 $27,952 $61,454
Expected reduction due to rule 15.6% 47.1%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $18,411
3% discount rate $14,848
7% discount rate $ 11,273
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter II for a timeline of benefits.
D3-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Appendix D3
Appendix D3: Commercial Fishing Benefits
Under Supplemental Policy Options
Introduction
Appendix Contents
Chapter D3 presents EPA's estimates of the
D3-1 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the
Supplemental Options D3-2
commercial benefits of the regulatory options for the
section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities in the Mid-
Atlantic region. To facilitate comparisons among the
options, this appendix presents estimates of the
commercial fishing benefits of several supplemental options that EPA evaluated in preparation for this rule:
>• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option;
*• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option;
>• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option;
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option;
> "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option;
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option;
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere" option; and
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I&E Everywhere" option.
Commercial fishing benefits presented in this chapter were estimated using the benefit transfer approach
discussed in Chapter D3 and in Chapter A4, "Methods for Estimating Commercial Fishing Benefits."
App. D3-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Appendix D3
D3-1 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the Supplemental Options
Tables D3-1 through D3-8 present EPA's estimates of the annualized commercial benefits of the supplemental
options in the Mid-Atlantic region. For more information on the options, please see the TDD.
Table D3-1: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
"Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" Option at Facilities in the
Mid-Atlantic Region (2004$)a
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $47,318 $41,918 $89,236
Producer surplus lost — 0% $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $33,502 $27,952 $61,454
Expected reduction due to rule 1% 0%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $207
3% discount rate $159
7% discount rate $113
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter
II for a timeline of benefits.
Table D3-2: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
"Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" Option at Facilities in the
Mid-Atlantic Region (2004$)a
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost — 0%
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue *
Undiscounted
Expected reduction due to rule
Benefits attributable to rule — 0%
Impingement
$47,318
$0
Entrainment
$41,918
$0
species-specific net benefits ratio)
$33,502 $27,952
1%
$0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
0%
$0
ratio
Total
$89,236
$0
$61,454
$0
$207
$159
$113
a. Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter II for a timeline of benefits.
App. D3-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Appendix D3
Table D3-3: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
"Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" Option at Facilities in the
Mid-Atlantic Region (2004$)a
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost — 0%
Impingement
$47,318
$0
Entrainment
$41,918
$0
Total
$89,236
$0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $33,502 $27,952 $61,454
Expected reduction due to rule 1% 2%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
$0
$701
$566
$432
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter II for a timeline of benefits.
Table D3-4: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
"Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" Option at Facilities in the
Mid-Atlantic Region (2004$)a
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost — 0%
Impingement
$47,318
$0
Entrainment
$41,918
$0
Total
$89,236
$0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $33,502 $27,952 $61,454
Expected reduction due to rule 4% 0%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
$0
$1,174
$982
$782
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter II for a timeline of benefits.
App. D3-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Appendix D3
Table D3-5: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
"Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" Option at Facilities in the
Mid-Atlantic Region (2004$)a
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $47,318 $41,918 $89,236
Producer surplus lost —0% $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $33,502 $27,952 $61,454
Expected reduction due to rule 4% 3%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $1,909
3% discount rate $1,597
7% discount rate $1,271
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter II for a timeline of benefits.
Table D3-6: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable
"Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" Option at Facilities
Mid-Atlantic Region (2004$)a
Impingement
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost — 0%
$47,318
$0
Entrainment
$41,918
$0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $33,502 $27,952
Expected reduction due to rule
Benefits attributable to rule — 0%
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
4%
$0
net benefits
3%
$0
ratio
to the
in the
Total
$89,236
$0
$61,454
$0
$1,909
$1,597
$1,271
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter II for a timeline of benefits.
App. D3-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Appendix D3
Table D3-7: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
"Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere" Option at Facilities in the
Mid-Atlantic Region (2004$)a
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost — 0%
Impingement
$47,318
$0
Entrainment
$41,918
$0
Total
$89,236
$0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $33,502 $27,952 $61,454
Expected reduction due to rule 23% 0%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
$0
$7,835
$6,369
$4,897
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter II for a timeline of benefits.
Table D3-8: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
"Manufacturers 50+ MGD I&E Everywhere" Option at Facilities in the
Mid-Atlantic Region (2004$)a
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost — 0%
Impingement
$47,318
$0
Entrainment
$41,918
$0
Total
$89,236
$0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $33,502 $27,952 $61,454
Expected reduction due to rule 23% 53%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
$0
$22,630
$18,387
$14,105
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter II for a timeline of benefits.
App. D3-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Chapter D4
Chapter D4: Recreational Use Benefits
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the recreational
fishing benefits analysis for the Mid-Atlantic region.
The chapter presents EPA's estimates of baseline
(i.e., current) annual recreational fishery losses from
impingement and entrainment (I&E) at potentially
regulated facilities in the Mid-Atlantic region and
annual reductions in these losses under the regulatory
options for Phase III existing facilities.1.:
>• the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option,
» the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option,
and
» the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies"
option.
The chapter then presents the estimated welfare gain
to Mid-Atlantic anglers from eliminating baseline
recreational fishing losses from I&E and the
expected benefits under the regulatory options.
Chapter Contents
D4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on
Meta-Analysis D4-1
D4-1.1 Baseline Losses and Reductions in
Recreational Fishery Losses Under
the Regulatory Options D4-2
D4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits
from Eliminating Baseline I&E
Losses D4-4
D4-1.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of
the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies"
Option D4-4
D4-1.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of
the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies"
Option D4-5
D4-1.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of
the "100 MOD for Certain
Waterbodies" Option D4-6
D4-2 Limitations and Uncertainty D4-6
EPA estimated the recreational benefits of reducing
and eliminating I&E losses using a benefit transfer methodology based on a meta-analysis of the marginal value
of catching different species offish. This meta-analysis is discussed in detail in Chapter A5, "Recreational
Fishing Benefits Methodology."
EPA considered a wide range of policy options in developing this regulation. In addition to the regulatory options,
EPA evaluated several supplemental options. Appendix D4 presents results of the recreational fishing benefits
analysis for the supplemental options. For additional information on the options, please see the TDD.
D4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-Analysis
EPA estimated the recreational welfare gain from the reduction in annual I&E losses expected under the policy
options, and the welfare gain from eliminating I&E at potentially regulated facilities, using a benefit transfer
approach. As discussed in Chapter A5, the Agency used a meta-analysis regression equation to estimate the
marginal recreational value per additional fish caught by anglers, for different species in different regions. Since
I&E at potentially regulated facilities affects a variety of species, EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to
one of the general species groups used in the meta-analysis. The Agency then calculated the economic value of
reducing or eliminating baseline I&E losses, for each species group, by multiplying the value per fish for that
species group by the number offish in the group that are lost in the baseline or saved under the policy options..2
1 See the Introduction to this report for a description of the regulatory options.
2 The estimates of I&E presented in this chapter include only the fraction of impinged and entrained recreational
fish that would be caught by anglers. The total amount of I&E of recreational species is actually much higher.
D4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Chapter D4
In general, the fit between the species with I&E losses and the species groups in the meta-analysis was good.
However, EPA's estimates of baseline I&E losses and reductions in I&E under the policy options included losses
of "unidentified" species. The "unidentified" group includes fish lost indirectly through trophic transfer, as well as
species for which no species information was available.3. Rather than using the meta-analysis regression to try to
predict the value per fish for an "unidentified" species, EPA assumed that per-fish values for these species can be
approximated by the weighted average value per fish for all species affected by I&E in the Mid-Atlantic region.4
D4-1.1 Baseline Losses and Reductions in Recreational Fishery Losses Under the Regulatory Options
Table D4-1 presents EPA's estimates of baseline (i.e., current) annual recreational I&E losses at potentially
regulated facilities, and annual reductions in these losses under each of the regulatory options, in the Mid-Atlantic
region. The table shows that total baseline losses to recreational fisheries are 108.7 thousand fish per year. In
comparison, the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option prevents losses of 43.0 thousand fish per year, and the
"200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option and the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option both prevent losses
of 35.8 thousand fish per year. Of all the affected species, spot and Atlantic croaker have the highest losses in the
baseline and the highest prevented losses under the regulatory options.
3 In addition to recreational fish that are lost because they are impinged or entrained, some recreational fish are lost
because the forage fish that they feed on are impinged or entrained, and thus removed from the food chain. These
trophic transfer losses of recreational species are included in EPA's estimates of total I&E losses. Since it is difficult to
predict which recreational species would be affected by losses of forage fish, these losses are classified as
"unidentified" recreational species. Also included in the "unidentified" group are losses offish that were reported by
facilities without information about their exact species.
EPA used the estimated level of baseline recreational losses for each species group as a weighting factor.
D4-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Chapter D4
Table D4-1: Baseline Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III
Facilities and Reductions in Recreational Losses Under the Regulatory Options in the
Mid-Atlantic Region
Annual Baseline
Recreational Fishing
Annual Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses
(# of fish)
Species8
Bluefish
Red drum
Spotted seatrout
Striped bass
Weakfish
Total (small game)
Summer flounder
Winter flounder
Total (flatfish)
Atlantic croaker
Black drum
Searobin
Smallmouth bass0
Spot
Striped mullet
White perch
Whitefishc
Total (other saltwater)
Brown bullhead
Bullhead
Channel catfish
Menhaden
Sunfish
Yellow perch
Total (panfish)
Total (unidentified)
Total (all species)
Losses
(# of fish)
3.1
262.8
134.3
2,460.5
6,639.0
9,499.8
525.8
288.3
814.1
18,023.4
18.0
14.9
5.7
65,471.5
1.2
374.1
41.9
83,951.0
203.4
165.6
19.0
24.0
2.2
21.8
436.7
13,952.6
108,654.2
50 MGD All
0.7
61.5
31.4
1,289.9
2,746.6
4,130.1
123.0
130.1
253.1
8,930.1
4.2
3.5
1.3
23,225.6
0.3
129.9
9.8
32,304.8
47.6
38.7
4.4
12.7
0.5
6.1
110.2
6,250.7
43,049.0
200 MGD All"
0.5
41.1
21.0
1,146.2
2,310.6
3,519.4
82.2
111.9
194.1
7,843.1
2.8
2.3
0.9
18,673.1
0.2
103.7
6.6
26,632.9
31.8
25.9
3.0
11.3
0.4
4.5
77.0
5,365.8
35,789.2
100 MGD CWBb
0.5
41.1
21.0
1,146.2
2,310.6
3,519.4
82.2
111.9
194.1
7,843.1
2.8
2.3
0.9
18,673.1
0.2
103.7
6.6
26,632.9
31.8
25.9
3.0
11.3
0.4
4.5
77.0
5,365.8
35,789.2
a. EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to one of the species groups used in the meta-analysis. The "other
saltwater" group includes bottomfish and other miscellaneous species. The "unidentified" group includes fish lost
indirectly through trophic transfer and fish reported lost without information about their species.
b Annual reductions in recreational I&E losses are the same in the Mid-Atlantic region for the "200 MGD for All
Waterbodies" and "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" options.
°. The "other saltwater" species group includes two freshwater species, smallmouth bass and whitefish, which can be
found in estuarine environments.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
D4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Chapter D4
D4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses
Table D4-2 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the welfare gain to recreational anglers from eliminating
baseline recreational fishery losses at potentially regulated facilities in the Mid-Atlantic region. The table presents
baseline annual recreational I&E losses, the estimated value per fish, and the monetized annual welfare gain from
eliminating recreational losses, for each species group. Total baseline recreational fishing losses for the Mid-
Atlantic region are 108.7 thousand fish per year. The undiscounted annual welfare gain to Mid-Atlantic anglers
from eliminating these losses is $295.9 thousand (2004$), with lower and upper bounds of $150.3 thousand and
$604.2 thousand. Evaluated at 3% and 7% discount rates, the mean annualized welfare gain of eliminating these
losses is $278.7 thousand and $258.3 thousand, respectively. The majority of monetized recreational losses from
I&E under baseline conditions are attributable to losses of species in the "other saltwater" group, including spot
and Atlantic croaker.
Table D4-2: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E at Potentially Regulated
Phase III Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region (2004$)
Baseline Annual
Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fishb
Annualized Benefits from Eliminating
Recreational Fishing Losses
(thousands)0'1*
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater e
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)8
9.5
0.8
84.0
0.4
14.0
108.7
108.7
108.7
Low
$1.67
$2.80
$1.34
$0.48
$1.39
Mean
$4.97
$4.73
$2.46
$0.89
$2.73
High
$14.55
$8.07
$4.54
$1.63
$5.58
Low
$15.8
$2.3
$112.6
$0.2
$19.3
$150.3
$141.5
$131.2
Mean
$47.2
$3.9
$206.4
$0.4
$38.1
$295.9
$278.7
$258.3
High
$138.2
$6.6
$380.8
$0.7
$77.8
$604.2
$568.9
$527.4
a. Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have been caught by
recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
°. Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying baseline losses by the estimated value per fish.
d Annualized values represent the total welfare gain over the time frame of the analysis from eliminating recreational
losses, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
and annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
e The "other saltwater" species group includes two freshwater species, smallmouth bass and whitefish, which can be
found in estuarine environments.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
D4-1.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table D4-3 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies"
option for the Mid-Atlantic region. The table presents the annual reduction in recreational I&E losses expected
under this option, the estimated value per fish, and annual monetized recreational welfare gain from this option,
by species group. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 43.0 thousand fish per year,
resulting in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $118.3 thousand (2004$), with lower and
D4-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Chapter D4
upper bounds of $59.6 thousand and $243.7 thousand. Evaluated at 3% and 7% discount rates, the mean
annualized welfare gain from this reduction in recreational losses is $96.1 thousand and $73.7 thousand,
respectively. The majority of benefits result from reduced losses of species in the "other saltwater" group,
including spot and Atlantic croaker.
Table D4-3: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
in the Mid-Atlantic Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish1
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)0'"
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater6
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)8
4.1
0.3
32.3
0.1
6.3
43.0
43.0
43.0
Low
$1.67
$2.80
$1.34
$0.48
$1.39
Mean
$4.97
$4.73
$2.46
$0.89
$2.73
High
$14.55
$8.07
$4.54
$1.63
$5.58
Low
$6.9
$0.7
$43.3
$0.1
$8.7
$59.6
$48.5
$37.2
Mean
$20.5
$1.2
$79.4
$0.1
$17.1
$118.3
$96.1
$73.7
High
$60.1
$2.0
$146.5
$0.2
$34.9
$243.7
$198.0
$151.9
a. Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have been caught by
recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
°. Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual reduction in recreational losses by the estimated value
per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
amiualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
e The "other saltwater" species group includes two freshwater species, smallmouth bass and whitefish, which can be
found in estuarine environments.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
D4-1.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table D4-4 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational benefits of the "200 MGD for All
Waterbodies" option for the Mid-Atlantic region. The table presents the annual reduction in recreational I&E
losses expected under this option, the estimated value per fish, and annual monetized recreational welfare gain
from this option, by species group. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 35.8 thousand
fish per year, resulting in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $98.6 thousand (2004$), with
lower and upper bounds of $49.6 thousand and $203.6 thousand. Evaluated at 3% and 7% discount rates, the
mean annualized welfare gain from this reduction in recreational losses is $79.5 thousand and $60.4 thousand,
respectively. The majority of benefits result from reduced losses of species in the "other saltwater" group,
including spot and Atlantic croaker.
D4-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Chapter D4
Table D4-4: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
in the Mid-Atlantic Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fishb
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) c'd
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater6
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)8
3.5
0.2
26.6
0.1
5.4
35.8
35.8
35.8
Low
$1.67
$2.80
$1.34
$0.48
$1.39
Mean
$4.97
$4.73
$2.46
$0.89
$2.73
High
$14.55
$8.07
$4.54
$1.63
$5.58
Low
$5.9
$0.5
$35.7
$0.0f
$7.4
$49.6
$40.0
$30.4
Mean
$17.5
$0.9
$65.5
$0.1
$14.7
$98.6
$79.5
$60.4
High
$51.2
$1.6
$120.8
$0.1
$29.9
$203.6
$164.2
$124.7
a. Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have been caught by
recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
°. Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual reduction in recreational losses by the estimated value
per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
e The "other saltwater" species group includes two freshwater species, smallmouth bass and whitefish, which can be
found in estuarine environments.
f Denotes a positive value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
D4-1.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
In the Mid-Atlantic region, all Phase III facilities that would have to install technology under the "200 MGD for
All Waterbodies" option or the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option have design intake flows that are
greater than 200 million gallons per day (MGD) and are located on coastal waterbodies. Because the requirements
under these two options are identical for this class of facilities, the I&E reductions and welfare gain resulting from
these two options are also identical. Thus, the benefits estimates presented for the "200 MGD for All
Waterbodies" option in Table D4-4 also apply to the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option. The table
shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 35.8 thousand fish per year, resulting in an undiscounted
welfare gain to recreational anglers of $98.6 thousand (2004$), with lower and upper bounds of $49.6 thousand
and $203.6 thousand. Evaluated at 3% and 7% discount rates, the mean annualized welfare gain from this
reduction in recreational losses is $79.5 thousand and $60.4 thousand, respectively.
D4-2 Limitations and Uncertainty
The results of the benefit transfer based on a meta-analysis represent EPA's best estimate of the recreational
benefits of the regulatory options. Nonetheless, there are a number of limitations and uncertainties inherent in
these estimates. General limitations pertaining to the development of the meta-analysis model, the use of the
model to estimate per-fish values, and the validity of the benefit transfer are discussed in section A5-3.3e and
section A5-5.3 of Chapter A5.
D4-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix D4
Appendix D4: Recreational Use Benefits
Under Supplemental Policy Options
Appendix Contents
D4-1
D4-2
Recreational Fishing Benefits of the
Supplemental Options D4-1
D4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in
Recreational Fishing Losses
Under the Supplemental Options D4-1
D4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits of
the Supplemental Options D4-4
Comparison of Recreational Fishing
Benefits by Option D4-10
Introduction
Chapter D4 presents EPA's estimates of the
recreational benefits of the regulatory options for the
section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities in the Mid-
Atlantic region. To facilitate comparisons among the
options, this appendix presents estimates of the
recreational fishing benefits of several supplemental
options that EPA evaluated in preparation for this
rule:
> "Electric Generators 2-50 MOD I-only
Everywhere" option;
*• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option;
*• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option;
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option;
> "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option;
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option;
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere" option; and
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I&E Everywhere" option.
Recreational fishing benefits presented in this chapter were estimated using the benefit transfer approach
discussed in Chapter D4 and in Chapter A5, "Recreational Fishing Benefits Methodology."
D4-1 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Supplemental Options
D4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses Under the Supplemental Options
Table D4-1 presents EPA's estimates of the annual reduction in baseline (i.e., current) recreational fishing losses
from impingement and entrainment (I&E) in the Mid-Atlantic region under the supplemental options. For
additional information on the options, please see the TDD.
App. D4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix D4
Table D4-1: Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E Under the Supplemental Options in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Annual Reduction in Recreational Losses
(# of fish)
Electric Generators 2-50 MGD
Species"
Bluefish
Red drum
Spotted seatrout
Striped bass
Weakfish
Total (small game)
Summer flounder
Winter flounder
Total (flatfish)
Atlantic croaker
Black drum
Searobin
Smallmouth bassd
Spot
Striped mullet
White perch
Whitefishd
Total (other saltwater)
Brown bullhead
Bullhead
Channel catfish
Menhaden
Sunfish
Yellow perch
I-only
Everywhere15
0.0
1.6
0.8
0.3
16.1
18.8
3.3
0.5
3.7
12.8
0.1
0.1
0.0
239.8
0.0
1.4
0.3
254.5
1.3
1.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
I&E like
Phase IIb
0.0
1.6
0.8
0.3
16.1
18.8
3.3
0.5
3.7
12.8
0.1
0.1
0.0
239.8
0.0
1.4
0.3
254.5
1.3
1.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
I&E
Everywhere
0.0
1.6
0.8
43.0
87.5
133.0
3.3
4.2
7.5
294.9
0.1
0.1
0.0
713.4
0.0
4.0
0.3
1,012.8
1.3
1.0
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.2
Manufacturers 2-50 MGD
I-only
Everywhere
0.1
9.2
4.7
1.5
91.1
106.6
18.4
2.7
21.1
72.3
0.6
0.5
0.2
1,355.9
0.0
8.1
1.5
1,439.1
7.1
5.8
0.7
0.0
0.1
0.6
I&E like
Phase IIC
0.1
9.2
4.7
65.1
197.3
276.4
18.4
8.2
26.7
491.9
0.6
0.5
0.2
2,060.1
0.0
11.9
1.5
2,566.7
7.1
5.8
0.7
0.6
0.1
0.7
I&E
Everywhere0
0.1
9.2
4.7
65.1
197.3
276.4
18.4
8.2
26.7
491.9
0.6
0.5
0.2
2,060.1
0.0
11.9
1.5
2,566.7
7.1
5.8
0.7
0.6
0.1
0.7
Manufacturers 50+ MGD
I-only
Everywhere
0.7
61.5
31.4
9.8
607.5
710.9
123.0
17.8
140.7
482.6
4.2
3.5
1.3
9,046.3
0.3
53.9
9.8
9,602.1
47.6
38.7
4.4
0.0
0.5
4.3
I&E
Everywhere
0.7
61.5
31.4
1,289.9
2,746.6
4,130.1
123.0
130.1
253.1
8,930.1
4.2
3.5
1.3
23,225.6
0.3
129.9
9.8
32,304.8
47.6
38.7
4.4
12.7
0.5
6.1
App. D4-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix D4
Table D4-1: Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E Under the Supplemental Options in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Annual Reduction in Recreational Losses
(# of fish)
Electric Generators 2-50 MGD
Species3
Total (panfish)
Total (unidentified)
Total (all species)
I-only
Everywhere15
2.5
23.8
303.5
I&E like
Phase IIb
2.5
23.8
303.5
I&E
Everywhere
3.0
202.6
1,358.9
Manufacturers 2-50 MGD
I-only
Everywhere
14.3
134.6
1,715.7
I&E like
Phase IIC
15.1
400.4
3,285.2
I&E
Everywhere0
15.1
400.4
3,285.2
Manufacturers 50+ MGD
I-only
Everywhere
95.7
898.0
11,447.4
I&E
Everywhere
110.2
6,250.7
43,049.0
a. EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to one of the species groups used in the meta-analysis. The "other saltwater" group includes bottomfish and other
miscellaneous species. The "unidentified" group includes fish lost indirectly through trophic transfer and fish reported lost without information about their
species.
b Annual reductions in recreational I&E losses are the same in the Mid-Atlantic region for the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" and "Electric
Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" options.
°. Annual reductions in recreational I&E losses are the same in the Mid-Atlantic region for the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" and "Manufacturers
2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" options.
d The "other saltwater" species group includes two freshwater species, smallmouth bass and whitefish, which can be found in estuarine environments.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. D4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix D4
D4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Supplemental Options
Tables D4-2 through D4-7 present EPA's estimates of the annualized recreational benefits of the supplemental
options in the Mid-Atlantic region.
Annual reductions in recreational I&E losses are the same in the Mid-Atlantic region for the "Electric Generators
2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option as for the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option.
Therefore, the annualized recreational fishing benefits for these two options are the same and are presented
together in Table D4-2.
Table D4-2: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere"
Option or the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD like Phase II" Option in the Mid-Atlantic Region (2004$)
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwaterd
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)
0.0e
o.oe
0.3
0.0e
0.0e
0.3
0.3
0.3
Value per Fish"
Low
$1.67
$2.80
$1.34
$0.48
$1.39
Mean
$4.97
$4.73
$2.46
$0.89
$2.73
High
$14.55
$8.07
$4.54
$1.63
$5.58
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Low
$0.0f
$o.of
$0.3
$0.0f
$0.0f
$0.4
$0.3
$0.2
Mean
$0.1
$0.0.f
$0.6
$0.0.f
$0.1
$0.8
$0.6
$0.4
High
$0.3
$0.0. f
$1.2
$0.0f
$0.1
$1.6
$1.2
$0.9
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d The "other saltwater" species group includes two freshwater species, smallmouth bass and whitefish, which can be
found in estuarine environments.
e Denotes a non-zero value less than 50 fish.
f Denotes a non-zero value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. D4-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix D4
Table D4-3: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere"
Option in the Mid-Atlantic Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwaterd
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)
0.1
o.oe
1.0
o.oe
0.2
1.4
1.4
1.4
Low
$1.67
$2.80
$1.34
$0.48
$1.39
Mean
$4.97
$4.73
$2.46
$0.89
$2.73
High
$14.55
$8.07
$4.54
$1.63
$5.58
Low
$0.2
$0.0f
$1.4
$0.0f
$0.3
$1.9
$1.5
$1.2
Mean
$0.7
$0.0f
$2.5
$0.0f
$0.6
$3.7
$3.0
$2.3
High
$1.9
$0.1
$4.6
$0.0f
$1.1
$7.7
$6.2
$4.8
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d The "other saltwater" species group includes two freshwater species, smallmouth bass and whitefish, which can be
found in estuarine environments.
e Denotes a non-zero value less than 50 fish.
f Denotes a non-zero value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. D4-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix D4
Table D4-4: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" Option
in the Mid-Atlantic Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwaterd
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)
0.1
o.oe
1.4
o.oe
0.1
1.7
1.7
1.7
Low
$1.67
$2.80
$1.34
$0.48
$1.39
Mean
$4.97
$4.73
$2.46
$0.89
$2.73
High
$14.55
$8.07
$4.54
$1.63
$5.58
Low
$0.2
$0.1
$1.9
$o.of
$0.2
$2.4
$2.0
$1.6
Mean
$0.5
$0.1
$3.5
$0.0f
$0.4
$4.5
$3.8
$3.0
High
$1.6
$0.2
$6.5
$0.0f
$0.8
$9.0
$7.5
$6.0
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d The "other saltwater" species group includes two freshwater species, smallmouth bass and whitefish, which can be
found in estuarine environments.
e Denotes a non-zero value less than 50 fish.
f Denotes a non-zero value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. D4-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix D4
Annual reductions in recreational I&E losses are the same in the Mid-Atlantic region for the "Manufacturers 2-50
MGD I&E Everywhere" option as for the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option. Therefore, the
annualized recreational fishing benefits for these two options are the same, and are presented together in
Table D4-5.
Table D4-5: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" Option
and the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" Option in the Mid-Atlantic Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwaterd
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)
0.3
0.0e
2.6
0.0e
0.4
3.3
3.3
3.3
Low
$1.67
$2.80
$1.34
$0.48
$1.39
Mean
$4.97
$4.73
$2.46
$0.89
$2.73
High
$14.55
$8.07
$4.54
$1.63
$5.58
Low
$0.5
$0.1
$3.4
$0.0f
$0.6
$4.5
$3.8
$3.0
Mean
$1.4
$0.1
$6.3
$0.0f
$1.1
$8.9
$7.5
$5.9
High
$4.0
$0.2
$11.6
$0.0f
$2.2
$18.1
$15.2
$12.1
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d The "other saltwater" species group includes two freshwater species, smallmouth bass and whitefish, which can be
found in estuarine environments.
e Denotes a non-zero value less than 50 fish.
f Denotes a non-zero value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. D4-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix D4
Table D4-6: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere" Option
in the Mid-Atlantic Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwaterd
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)
0.7
0.1
9.6
0.1
0.9
11.4
11.4
11.4
Low
$1.67
$2.80
$1.34
$0.48
$1.39
Mean
$4.97
$4.73
$2.46
$0.89
$2.73
High
$14.55
$8.07
$4.54
$1.63
$5.58
Low
$1.2
$0.4
$12.9
$0.0e
$1.2
$15.7
$12.8
$9.8
Mean
$3.5
$0.7
$23.6
$0.1
$2.5
$30.3
$24.7
$19.0
High
$10.3
$1.1
$43.6
$0.2
$5.0
$60.2
$48.9
$37.6
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d The "other saltwater" species group includes two freshwater species, smallmouth bass and whitefish, which can be
found in estuarine environments.
e Denotes a non-zero value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. D4-8
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix D4
Table D4-7: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I&E Everywhere" Option
in the Mid-Atlantic Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwaterd
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)
4.1
0.3
32.3
0.1
6.3
43.0
43.0
43.0
Low
$1.67
$2.80
$1.34
$0.48
$1.39
Mean
$4.97
$4.73
$2.46
$0.89
$2.73
High
$14.55
$8.07
$4.54
$1.63
$5.58
Low
$6.9
$0.7
$43.3
$0.1
$8.7
$59.6
$48.5
$37.2
Mean
$20.5
$1.2
$79.4
$0.1
$17.1
$118.3
$96.1
$73.7
High
$60.1
$2.0
$146.5
$0.2
$34.9
$243.7
$198.0
$151.9
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d The "other saltwater" species group includes two freshwater species, smallmouth bass and whitefish, which can be
found in estuarine environments.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. D4-9
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Appendix D4
D4-2 Comparison of Recreational Fishing Benefits by Option
Table D4-8 compares the recreational fishing benefits of several supplemental options.
Table D4-8: Annual Recreational Benefits of the Supplemental Options in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Policy Option
Annual Reduction
in Recreational Fishing
Losses from I&E
(thousands of fish)
Undiscounted Recreational Fishing Benefits
(thousands; 2004$)a
Low
Mean
High
Electric Generators 2-50 MGD
I-only Everywhere13
I&E like Phase IIb
I&E Everywhere
0.3
0.3
1.4
$0.4
$0.4
$1.9
$0.8
$0.8
$3.7
$1.6
$1.6
$7.7
Manufacturers 2-50 MGD
I-only Everywhere
I&E like Phase If.
I&E Everywhere0
1.7
3.3
3.3
$2.4
$4.5
$4.5
$4.5
$8.9
$8.9
$9.0
$18.1
$18.1
Manufacturers 50+ MGD
I-only Everywhere
I&E Everywhere
11.4
43.0
$15.7
$59.6
$30.3
$118.3
$60.2
$243.7
a. These benefit estimates were calculated using the meta-analysis approach discussed in Chapter A5 and Chapter B4.
b Annual reductions in recreational I&E losses and undiscounted recreational fishing benefits are the same in the Mid-
Atlantic region for the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" and "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E
like Phase II" options.
°. Annual reductions in recreational I&E losses and undiscounted recreational fishing benefits are the same in the Mid-
Atlantic region for the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" and "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E
Everywhere" options.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App.D4-10
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Chapter D5
Chapter D5: Federally Listed T&E Species
in the Mid-Atlantic Region
This chapter lists current federally listed threatened and endangered (T&E) fish and shellfish species in the Mid-
Atlantic Region. This list does not address proposed or candidate species; In addition, fish and shellfish listed as
cave species, marine mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and snails are not included in this chapter.
Table D5-1: Delaware Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status Scientific Name Common Name
E Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon
E Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedgemussel
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Table D5-2: District of Columbia Federally Listed T&E fish and Shellfish
Status Scientific Name Common Name
E Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedgemussel
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Table D5-3: Maryland Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status Scientific Name Common Name
E Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon
E Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedgemussel
E Etheostoma sellare Maryland darter
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Table D5-4: New Jersey Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status Scientific Name Common Name
E Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon
E Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedgemussel
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
D5-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Chapter D5
Table D5-5: New York Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Alasmidonta heterodon
Dwarf wedgemussel
Acipenser brevirostrum
Shortnose sturgeon
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Table D5-6: Pennsylvania Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status Scientific Name
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Source:
Pleurobema clava
Cyprogenia stegaria
Lampsilis abrupta
Pleurobema plenum
Plethobasus cooperianus
Epioblasma torulosa rangiana
Obovaria retusa
Alasmidonta heterodon
USFWS, 2006a.
Common Name
Clubshell mussel: entire range except where listed as
experimental populations
Fanshell mussel
Pink mucket pearlymussel
Rough pigtoe pearlymussel
Orange-foot pimpleback pearlymussel
Northern riffleshell mussel
Ring pink mussel
Dwarf wedgemussel
Table D5-7: Virginia Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status Scientific Name
E Acipenser brevirostrum
E Alasmidonta heterodon
E Conradilla caelata
T Cyprinella monacha
E Cyprogenia stegaria
E Dromus dramas
E Epioblasma brevidens
E Epioblasma capsaeformis
E Epioblasma florentina walker ( = E. walkeri)
T Erimystax cahni
E Etheostoma percnurum
E Fusconaia cor
E Fusconaia cuneolus
E Hemistena lata
T Noturus flavipinnis
Common Name
Shortnose sturgeon
Dwarf wedgemussel
Birdwing pearlymussel: entire range except where listed
as experimental populations
Spotfin chub
Fanshell mussel
Dromedary pearlymussel: entire range except where
listed as experimental populations
Cumberlandian combshell mussel: entire range except
where listed as experimental populations
Oyster mussel: entire range except where listed as
experimental populations
Tan riffleshell mussel
Slender chub
Duskytail darter
Shiny pigtoe mussel: entire range except where listed as
experimental populations
Fine-rayed pigtoe mussel: entire range except where
listed as experimental populations
Cracking pearlymussel: entire range except where listed
as experimental populations
Yellowfin madtom
D5-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Chapter D5
Table D5-7: Virginia Federally
Status Scientific Name
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Source:
Pegiasfabula
Percina rex
Pleurobema collina
Pleurobema plenum
Quadrula cylindrica strigillata
Quadrula intermedia
Quadrula sparsa
Villosa trabalis
Epioblasma torulosa gubernaculum
Villosa perpurpurea
USFWS, 2006a.
Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Little-wing pearlymussel
Roanoke logperch
James spinymussel
Rough pigtoe mussel
Rough rabbitsfoot mussel
Cumberland monkeyface pearlymussel: entire ran
except where listed as experimental populations
Appalachian monkeyface pearlymussel
ge
Cumberland bean pearlymussel: entire range except
where listed as experimental populations
Green blossom pearlymussel: entire range except
listed as experimental populations
Purple bean mussel
where
D5-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment
PartE: Gulf of Mexico
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Chapter El
Chapter El: Background
Introduction
Chapter Contents
El-1 Facility Characteristics El-1
This chapter presents an overview of the potential
Phase III existing facilities in the Gulf of Mexico
study region and summarizes their key cooling water
and compliance characteristics. For further
discussion of the technical and compliance characteristics of potential Phase III existing facilities, refer to the
Economic Analysis for the Final Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities and the Technical Development
Document for the Final Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2006a,c).
El-1 Facility Characteristics
The Gulf of Mexico Regional Study includes five sample facilities that are potentially subject to the national
standards for Phase III existing facilities. Figure El-1 presents a map of these facilities. All five facilities are
manufacturing facilities. Industry-wide, these five sample facilities represent 12 manufacturing facilities..1
1 EPA applied sample weights to the survey respondents to account for non-sampled facilities and facilities that did
not respond to the survey. For more information on EPA's 2000 Section 316(b) Industry Survey, please refer to the
Information Collection Request (U.S. EPA, 2000b).
El-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Chapter El
Figure El-1: Potential Existing Phase III Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Regional Study"
Potential Phase III Existing Facilities (Count)
O Electric Generating Facility (0) J Gulf of Mexico Region with Counties
• Manufacturing Facility (5)
0 70 140 Miles
a. The map includes locations of sample facilities only.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
El-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Chapter El
Table El-1 summarizes key technical and compliance characteristics for all potentially regulated Phase III
existing facilities in the Gulf of Mexico study region for the regulatory options considered by EPA for this rule
(the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, and the "100 MOD for
Certain Waterbodies" option). Facilities with a design intake flow below the three applicability thresholds would
be subject to permitting based on best professional judgment and are excluded from EPA's analyses.2 Therefore,
a different number of facilities is affected under each option.
Table El-1 shows that 11 Phase III existing facilities in the Gulf of Mexico study region would potentially be
subject to the national requirements. Under the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the most inclusive of the
regulatory options, seven facilities would be subject to the national requirements for Phase III existing facilities.
Under the less inclusive "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, three facilities would be subject to the national
requirements. Seven facilities would also be subject to the national requirements under the "100 MOD for Certain
Waterbodies" option. No facility in the Gulf of Mexico study region has a recirculating system in the baseline.
Table El-1: Technical and Compliance Characteristics of Existing Phase III Facilities (sample-weighted)
Total Number of Facilities (sample-weighted)3
Number of Facilities with Recirculating System in Baseline
Design Intake Flow (MGD)
Number of Facilities by Compliance Response
New larger intake structure with fine mesh and fish H&R
Double-entry, single-exit with fine mesh, and fish H&R
None
Compliance Cost, Discounted at 3%c
Compliance Cost, Discounted at 7%c
All Potentially
Regulated
Facilities
12
-
2,501
6
1
4
$10.12
$11.18
Regulatory Options
50 MGD
All
7
200 MGD 100 MGD
All CWB
3 7
.
wb
6
1
$6.74
$6.67
wb wb
2 6
1 1
$3.52 $6.72
$3.44 $6.67
a. Total may not equal compliance response subtotals due to rounding.
b Data withheld because of confidentiality reasons.
°. Annualized pre-tax compliance cost (2004$, millions).
Sources: U.S. EPA, 2000b; U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Also excluded are facilities that are estimated to be baseline closures. For additional information on EPA's
baseline closure analyses, please refer to the Economic Analysis for the Final Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III
Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2006a).
El-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Appendix El: Life History Parameter Values
Used to Evaluate I&E in the
Gulf of Mexico Region
The tables in this appendix are those life history parameter values used by EPA to calculate age-1 equivalents and
fishery yield from impingement and entrainment (I&E) data for the Gulf of Mexico region. Because of differences
in the number of life stages represented in the loss data, there are cases where more than one life stage sequence
was needed for a given species or species group. Alternative parameter sets were developed for this purpose and
are indicated with a number following the species or species group name (i.e., Anchovies 1, Anchovies 2).
Table El-1: Atlantic Croaker Life History Parameters
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Stage Name (M)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
0.817
8.10
3.38
1.09
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.30 0.50
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000128
0.000000145
0.0000624
0.220
0.672
1.24
1.88
2.43
3.26
3.26
3.26
Source: PSE&G, 1999.
App. El-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Table El-2: Anchovies Parameters 1."
Eg
Stage Name
;gs
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.94
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000186
Prolarvae
1.57
0.0000000441
Post larvae
6.12
0.00000235
Juvenile
1.29
0.000481
Age 1+
1.62
0.00381
Age 2+
1.62
0.00496
Age 3+
1.62
0
0
0.00505
a. Includes bay anchovy, striped anchovy, and other anchovies not identified to species.
Sources: Derickson and Price, 1973; Leak andHoude, 1987; PSE&G, 1999; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table El-3: Anchovies Parameters 2."
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Juvenile 3
Juvenile 4
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.94
7.70
0.0822
0.0861
0.129
0.994
1.62
1.62
1.62
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a. Includes bay anchovy.
Sources: Derickson and Price, 1973; Leak and Houde, 1987;
Fraction
Vulnerable
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PSE&G, 1999;
to Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000186
0.00000158
0.0000495
0.000199
0.000532
0.00114
0.00381
0.00496
0.00505
andNMFS, 200 3 a.
App. El-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Table El-4: Black Drum Life History Parameters 1
Stage Name
Egg
Prolarvae
Postlarvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age 21+
Age 22+
Age 23+
Age 24+
Age 25+
Age 26+
Age 27+
Age 28+
Age 29+
Age 30+
Age 31+
Age 32+
Age 33+
Age 34+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.27
3.06
3.06
1.15
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000842
0.000000926
0.0000176
0.0327
0.671
1.70
3.21
5.15
7.43
9.93
12.6
15.3
18.0
20.7
23.3
25.7
28.1
30.2
32.3
34.1
35.8
37.4
38.8
40.1
41.3
42.4
43.3
44.2
45.0
45.7
46.3
46.8
47.3
47.8
48.2
48.5
48.8
49.1
App. El-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Table El-4: Black Drum Life History Parameters 1
Stage Name
Age 35+
Age 36+
Age 37+
Age 38+
Age 39+
Age 40+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
49.4
49.6
49.8
50.0
50.1
50.3
Sources: Sutler et al, 1986; Scott and Scott, 1988; Murphy and Taylor, 1989; Leardet al, 1993;
Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Froese andPauly, 2001; and personal communication with Michael D.
Murphy, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute,
January 23, 2002.
Table El-5: Black Drum Life History Parameters 2
Stage Name
Egg
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 1 1+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Age 20+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.27
6.13
1.15
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000842
0.00000453
0.0327
0.671
1.70
3.21
5.15
7.43
9.93
12.6
15.3
18.0
20.7
23.3
25.7
28.1
30.2
32.3
34.1
35.8
37.4
38.8
40.1
App. El-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Table El-5: Black Drum Life History Parameters 2
Stage Name
Age 21+
Age 22+
Age 23+
Age 24+
Age 25+
Age 26+
Age 27+
Age 28+
Age 29+
Age 30+
Age 31+
Age 32+
Age 33+
Age 34+
Age 35+
Age 36+
Age 37+
Age 38+
Age 39+
Age 40+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
41.3
42.4
43.3
44.2
45.0
45.7
46.3
46.8
47.3
47.8
48.2
48.5
48.8
49.1
49.4
49.6
49.8
50.0
50.1
50.3
Sources: Sutler et al, 1986; Scott and Scott, 1988; Murphy and Taylor, 1989; Leard et al, 1993; Able
andFahay, 1998; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Froese andPauly, 2001; and personal communication
with Michael D. Murphy, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine
Research Institute, January 23, 2002.
Table El-6: Blue Crab Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Zoeae
Megalops
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Sources: Hartman,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
13.8
1.30
1.73
1.00
1.00
1.00
1993; PSE&G, 1999;
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0.48
1.0
1.0
1.0
and Murphy et al.,
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
2000,
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000211
0.00000291
0.00000293
0.00719
0.113
0.326
App. El-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Appendix El
Table El-7: Commercial Shrimp Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Prolarvae
Postlarvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
3.22
1.70
1.70
0.140
0.140
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.14
0.14
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.'
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000253
0.00000274
0.0000268
0.0473
0.0770
a. Includes pink shrimp, brown shrimp, white shrimp, and other commercial shrimp not identified to
species.
Sources: Costello and Allen, 1970; Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1980; Bielsa et al,
1983; and TBNEP, 1992.
Table El-8: Commercial Shrimp Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
3.22
3.40
0.140
0.140
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0.14
0.14
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
1.0
1.0
2.'
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000253
0.00000274
0.0473
0.0770
a. Includes pink shrimp.
Sources: Costello and Allen, 1970; Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1980; Bielsa et al,
1983; and TBNEP, 1992.
Table El-9: Goby Life History Parameters3
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.288
4.09
2.30
2.55
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000200
0.00000219
0.00049
0.00205
a. Includes clown goby, code goby, frillfin goby, green goby, naked goby, sharptail goby, skilletfish,
violet goby, and other goby species not identified to species.
Sources: PSE&G, 1999; Froese andPauly, 2003; andNMFS, 2003a.
APP. El-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Table El-10: Hogchoker Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to Weight
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery (Ibs)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
2.24
6.73
0.916
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sources: New England Power Company and Marine Research Inc.,
PG&E National Energy Group, 2001; andNMFS, 2003 a.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1995;,
0.000000487
0.00110
0.00207
0.0113
0.0313
0.0610
0.0976
0.138
0.178
Able and Fahay, 1998;
Table El-11: Jack/Pompano Species Life
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.817
8.61
0.916
0.340
0.340
0.340
0.340
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
History Parameters8
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00000127
0.0222
0.168
0.460
0.511
0.565
a. Includes Atlantic bumper, Atlantic moonfish, bluntnose jack, crevalle jack, leatherjacket, lookdown,
and permit.
Sources: PSE&G, 1999; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2001; Overholtz,
2002b; andFroese andPauly, 2003.
APP. El-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Table El-12:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
3.00
0.916
0.777
0.777
0.777
0.777
0.777
0.777
0.777
Killifish Life History Parameters"
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000180
0.0000182
0.000157
0.0121
0.0327
0.0551
0.0778
0.0967
0.113
0.158
a. Includes gulf killifish, longnose killifish, bayou killifish, and other killifish species not identified to
species.
Sources: Carlander, 1969; Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977; Meredith andLotrich, 1979;
Able andFahay, 1998; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table El-13: Mackerel Species Life
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.39
10.6
0.916
0.520
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
History Parameters"
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000176
0.00000193
0.0000368
0.309
0.510
0.639
0.752
0.825
0.918
1.02
1.10
1.13
1.15
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
a. Includes Spanish mackerel.
Sources: Scott and Scott, 1988; Overholtz et al, 1991; Studholme et al, 1999; Entergy Nuclear
Generation Company, 2000; andFroese andPauly, 2001, 2003.
APP. El-8
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Table El-14: Menhaden Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.08
5.71
2.85
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000203
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
a. Includes Alabama shad, Atlantic thread herring, finescale menhaden, gizzard shad, gulf menhaden,
skipjack herring, yellowfm menhaden, and other closely related herrings not identified to species.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbinet al, 1983; Ruppert et al, 1985; Able and Fahay, 1998; Entergy
Nuclear Generation Company, 2000,; ASMFC, 200 Ib; andFroese andPauly, 2001.
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Table El-15:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30..
7.39..
1.91
0.340
0.340..
Pinfish Life History
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0..
0
0..
0.34
0.34..
Parameters"
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0..
0
0..
0.50
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000107
0.0000238
0.00669
0.0791
0.218
a. Includes pinfish, spottail pinfish, and other porgies not identified to species.
Sources : Muncy, 1984; Nelson, 1998; andFroese andPauly, 2001.
App. El-9
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Table El-16: Pipefish Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
2.40
0.916
0.750
0.750
0.750
0.750
0.750
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000842
0.0000122
0.00785
0.0195
0.0384
0.0658
0.103
0.151
a. Includes chain pipefish, dusky pipefish, gulf pipefish, and other pipefish not identified to species.
Sources: Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977; Scott and Scott, 1988; Able andFahay,
1998; Froese andPauly, 2001, 2003; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table El-17: Red Drum Life History
Stage Name
Egg
Prolarvae
Postlarvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 1 1+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.27
3.06
3.06
1.15
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
Parameters
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000842
0.000000926
0.0000176
0.0327
0.671
1.70
3.21
5.15
7.43
9.93
12.6
15.3
18.0
20.7
23.3
25.7
28.1
30.2
32.3
34.1
35.8
37.4
App. El-10
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Table El-17: Red Drum Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age 21+
Age 22+
Age 23+
Age 24+
Age 25+
Age 26+
Age 27+
Age 28+
Age 29+
Age 30+
Age 31+
Age 32+
Age 33+
Age 34+
Age 35+
Age 36+
Age 37+
Age 38+
Age 39+
Age 40+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
38.8
40.1
41.3
42.4
43.3
44.2
45.0
45.7
46.3
46.8
47.3
47.8
48.2
48.5
48.8
49.1
49.4
49.6
49.8
50.0
50.1
50.3
Sources: Sutler et al,
Bartell and Campbell,
Murphy, Florida Fish
January 23, 2002.
1986; Scott and Scott, 1988; Murphy and Taylor, 1989; Leardet al, 1993;
2000; Froese andPauly, 2001; and personal communication with Michael D.
and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute,
APP. El-11
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Table El-18: Scaled Sardine Life History Parameters3
Stage Name
Eggs
Prolarvae
Postlarvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.12
0.560
6.53
0.916
1.02
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000533
0.00000586
0.0000247
0.000483
0.275
a. Includes Brazilian sardinella, scaled sardine, threadfin shad, and other clupeids not identified to
species.
Sources: Houde et al, 1974; Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1980; Pierce et al, 2001;
Froese andPauly, 2003; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table El-19: Sea Bass Species Life History Parameters"
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
Stage Name (M) (F)
Egg
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
0.288
6.00
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000101
0.00000111
0.000581
0.0313
0.0625
0.125
0.312
0.531
0.813
1.13
1.50
1.88
2.19
a. Includes black sea bass.
Sources: Cailliet, 2000; California Department of Fish and Game, 2000b; Leet et al., 2001; and
Froese andPauly, 2002.
App. El-12
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Table El-20: Searobin Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
3.66
0.916
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000132
0.00000145
0.000341
0.0602
0.176
0.267
0.386
0.537
0.721
0.944
1.21
a. Includes bighead searobin, leopard searobin, and other searobins not identified to species.
Sources: Saila et al., 1997; Virginia Tech, 1998; andFroese andPauly, 2001, 2003.
APP. El-13
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Table El-21: Sheepshead Scab ream Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to Weight
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery (Ibs)
Eggs
2.30
0
0
0.000000591
Larvae
7.39
0.0000241
Juvenile
1.91
0.00167
Age 1+
0.981
Age 2+
1.22
Age 3+
1.98
0.45
0.50
1.56
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
1.98 0.45
1.98 0.45
1.98 0.45
1.98 0.45
1.98 0.45
1.98 0.45
1.98 0.45
1.98 0.45
1.98 0.45
1.98 0.45
1.98 0.45
1.98 0.45
1.98 0.45
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.33
2.43
2.45
2.47
2.49
2.51
2.53
2.55
2.57
2.59
2.61
2.63
2.65
Sources: Pattillo et al, 1997; Nelson, 1998; Murphy andMacDonald, 2000; Murphy et al, 2000;
Froese andPauly, 2002; and personal communication with Michael D. Murphy, Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute, January 23, 2002.
APP. El-14
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Table El-22: Silver Perch Life History Parameters 1".
Stage Name
Eggs
Prolarvae
Postlarvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.75
2.10
3.27
1.71
3.84
3.84
3.84
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0.10
0.10
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000527
0.000000580
0.0000379
0.0445
0.273
4.15
0.607
a. Includes banded drum, silver perch, silver seatrout, southern kingfish, and star drum.
Sources: Able andFahay, 1998; PSE&G, 1999; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,
2001; Froese andPauly, 2001, 2003; and personal communication with Michael D. Murphy, Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute, January 23, 2002.
Table El-23: Silver Perch Life History Parameters 2."
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.75
5.37
1.71
3.84
3.84
3.84
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.10
0.10
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000527
0.00000771
0.0445
0.273
0.415
0.607
a. Includes silver perch, northern kingfish, and southern kingfish.
Sources: Able andFahay, 1998; PSE&G, 1999; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,
2001; Froese andPauly, 2001, 2003; and personal communication with Michael D. Murphy, Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute, January 23, 2002.
APP. El-15
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Table El-24: Silverside Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Prolarvae
Postlarvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
1.45
1.45
0.916
2.10..
2.10
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000487.
0.000000554
0.00000554..
0.0000292..
0.0119
0.0224
a. Includes California grunion, inland silverside, rough silverside, tidewater silverside, and other
silversides not identified to the species.
Sources: Hildebrand, 1922; Garwood, 1968; Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977, 1980;
Scott and Scott, 1988; Froese andPauly, 2001; andNMFS, 2003a..
Stage Name
Eggs
Prolarvae
Postlarvae
Table El-25:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.825
3.30
4.12
Spot Life History
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
Parameters 1
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000131
0.000000154
0.000000854
Juvenile
2.57
0.000121
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
0.463
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0791
0.299
0.507
0.648
0.732
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
Sources: Warlen et al, 1980; andPSE&G, 1984, 1999.
APP. El-16
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Sources: Warlen
Table El-26:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.825..
7.42..
2.57
0.463
0.400..
0.400
0.400..
0.400
0.400..
0.400
0.400..
0.400
0.400..
0.400
0.400..
0.400
0.400
0.400..
Spot Life History Parameters 2
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000131..
0.000000504
0.000121..
0.0791..
0.299.
0.507
0.648..
0.732
0.779.
0.779.
0.779
0.779.
0.779
0.779.
0.779
0.779.
0.779
0.779.
etal, 1980; andPSE&G, 1984, 1999.
App.El-17
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Table El-27: Spotted Seatrout Life History Parameters 1"
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery
Eggs 2.30.. 0 00.
Prolarvae 1.50 0 0 0
Postlarvae 6.92 0 00
Juvenile 0.272 0.27 0.50
Age 1+ 0.272 0.27 1.0
Age 2+ 0.272 0.27 1.0
Age 3+ 0.272 0.27 1.0
Age 4+ 0.272 0.27 1.0
Age 5+ 0.272 0.27 1.0
Age 6+ 0.272 0.27 1.0
Age 7+ 0.272 0.27 1.0
Age 8+ 0.272 0.27 1.0
a. Includes sand seatrout, sand weakfish, spotted seatrout, and other drums not identified
Sources: Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1980; Johnson and Seaman, 1986;
1986; and Murphy and Taylor, 1994.
Weight
(Ibs)
000000842..
.000000926
.00000568..
0.571..
0.914
1.55..
2.50
3.15
3.54
4.41
4.97
4.99
to species.
Sutler et al,
Table El-28: Spotted Seatrout Life History Parameters 2."
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery
Eggs 2.30.. 0 00.
Larvae 8.42 0 00
Juvenile 0.272 0.27 0.50
Age 1+ 0.272 0.27 1.0
Age 2+ 0.272 0.27 1.0
Age 3+ 0.272 0.27 1.0
Age 4+ 0.272 0.27 1.0
Age 5+ 0.272 0.27 1.0
Age 6+ 0.272 0.27 1.0
Age 7+ 0.272 0.27 1.0
Age 8+ 0.272 0.27 1.0
a. Includes sand seatrout and spotted seatrout.
Sources: Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1980; Johnson and Seaman, 1986;
1986; and Murphy and Taylor, 1994.
Weight
(Ibs)
000000842..
.000000926
0.571..
0.914
1.55..
2.50
3.15..
3.54
4.41
4.97
4.99
Sutler et al.,
App. El-18
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Table El-29: Stone Crab Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
Megalops
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Sources: Bert et al,
1984; andEhrhardt
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(M) (F) Fishery
1.97. 0 0
1.97 0 0
1.97. 0 0
1.97 0 0
1.97. 0 0
1.97 0 0
1.97. 0 0
0.939 0.75 0.50
0.939 0.75 1.0
0.939 0.75 1.0
0.939 0.75 1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000101
0.000000417
0.00000109
0.00000226
0.00000405
0.00000662
0.0000182..
1.02..
3.63
7.12..
10.0
1978; Sullivan, 1979; Lindberg and Marshall, 1984; Van denAvyle and Fowler,
etal, 1990.
Table El-30: Striped Mullet Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(M) (F) Fishery
1.90 0.. 0
4.61.. 0 0
0.916.. 0.. 0
0.230 0.30.. 0.50
0.230 0.30 1.0
0.230 0.30 1.0
0.230 0.30 1.0
0.230 0.30 1.0
0.230 0.30 1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000537.
0.0000110..
0.131..
0.187
0.379.
0.774
1.58
3.21
6.53
Sources: Collins, 1985; Wang, 1986; PSE&G, 1999; andFroese andPauly, 2003.
App. El-19
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Table El-31: Other Commercial Species Life
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Name (M)
2.08
5.71
2.85
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
History Parameters"
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0 0.
0 0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
000000716
.00000204
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
a. Includes Atlantic cutlassfish, black bullhead, cobia, grey snapper, gulf butterfish, ladyfish, largehead
hairtail, mojarra spp., silver jenny, spotfin mojarra, tripletail, and yellow bullhead.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbinet al, 1983; Ruppert et al, 1985; Able andFahay, 1998; PSE&G,
1999; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; andASMFC, 200Ib.
Table El-32: Other Recreational Species Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.08
5.71
2.85
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
a. See Table El-34 for a list of species.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbinet al, 1983; Ruppert et al, 1985; Able and Fahay, 1998; PSE&G,
1999; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; andASMFC, 200 Ib.
App. El-20
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Table El-33: Other Forage Species Life History Parameters"
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery
Eggs 1.04
Larvae 7.70
Juvenile 1.29
Age 1+ 1.62
Age 2+ 1.62
Age 3+ 1.62
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
to Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000186
0.00000158
0.000481
0.00381
0.00496..
0.00505
a See Table El-35 for a list of species.
Sources : Derickson and Price, 1973; and PSE&G, 1999.
Table El-34: Other
Atlantic sharpnose shark Bonnethead
Atlantic stingray Channel catfish
Bandtail puffer Dwarf sandperch
Belted sandfish Gafftopsail catfish
Blackear bass Gag grouper
Bluefish Gulf toadfish
Recreational Species"
Hardhead sea catfish
Least puffer
Pigfish
Rock sea bass
Sand perch
Sea catfish
Smooth butterfly ray
Smooth puffer
Southern flounder
Southern puffer
Tomtate
a Includes other organisms not identified to species.
Table El-35: Other Forage Species3
Atlantic midshipman Dwarf seahorse
Atlantic needlefish Fat sleeper
Atlantic spadefish Feather blenny
Atlantic threadfm Florida blenny
Barbfish Freckled blenny
Bay whiff Fringed filefish
Blackcheek tonguefish Fringed flounder
Blackwing flyingfish Golden shiner
Bluegill Green sunfish
Jawfish
Lined seahorse
Live sharksucker
Longear sunfish
Mottled jawfish
Needlefish
Orange filefish
Planehead filefish
Polka dot batfish
Bridle cardinalfish Gulf of Mexico ocellated flounder Redfin needlefish
Carp Halfbeak
Common halfbeak Harvestfish
Diamond lizardfish Inshore lizardfish
Roughback batfish
Sailfm molly
Scrawled cowfish
Seahorse
Sheepshead minnow
Snakefish
Southern codling
Southern hake
Southern stargazer
Spotted whiff
Striped blenny
Striped burrfish
Warmouth
Yellowhead j awfish
a Includes other organisms not identified to species.
App. El-21
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Chapter E2
Chapter E2: Evaluation of Impingement and
Entrainment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter Contents
E2-1
E2-2
E2-3
E2-4
E2-5
I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated E2-1
I&E Data Evaluated E2-2
EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at
Phase III Facilities in the Gulf Region
Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Yield E2-3
Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities
in the Gulf of Mexico Region Under
Alternative Options E2-4
Assumptions Used in Calculating
Recreational and Commercial Losses E2-5
Background: Gulf of Mexico Marine
Fisheries
Important marine fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico
include both migratory pelagic species and reef
fishes. Coastal pelagic fishes include king mackerel,
Spanish mackerel, cero, dolphinfish, and cobia.
These species range from the northeastern U.S.
through the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea, and
as far south as Brazil (NMFS, 1999a). They are
managed under the Coastal Migratory Pelagic
Resources Fishery Management Plan and regulations
of the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Councils, which are implemented by
the NOAA Fisheries. King and Spanish mackerel
make up nearly 95% of harvested coastal pelagic species, and are managed as two separate groups, the Gulf group
and the Atlantic group (NMFS, 1999a). Most of the commercial catch of Spanish mackerel is landed in Florida.
Up to 40% of the Gulf stock is also recreationally fished. Dolphinfish and cobia are also important recreational
species, but the status of these stocks is uncertain (NMFS, 1999a).
Reef fishes include over 100 species ranging from North Carolina through the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean
Sea that are important for commercial and recreational anglers (NMFS, 1999a). Many reef fisheries are closely
associated with other managed reef animals, including spiny lobster and stone crab. In the Gulf of Mexico, reef
fisheries include snapper and grouper species as well as grunts, amberjacks, and seabasses. Although landings of
individual species aren't large, collectively reef fisheries have significant landings and value (NMFS, 1999a).
However, stock status of many of these species remains unknown. Red snapper, the most important Gulf reef fish,
is considered overutilized, in part because it is caught incidentally by the shrimp fishery (NMFS, 1999a).
E2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated
Table E2-1 provides a list of species/species groups that were evaluated in EPA's analysis of impingement and
entrainment (I&E) in the Gulf region.
Table E2-1: Species/Species Groups Evaluated by EPA that are
Subject to I&E in the Gulf of Mexico
Species/Species Group Recreational Commercial Forage
Atlantic croaker
X
X
Bay anchovy
X
Black drum
X
X
Blue crab
X
Chain pipefish
Gobies
X
E2-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Chapter E2
Table E2-1: Species/Species Groups Evaluated by EPA that are
Subject to I&E in the Gulf of Mexico
Species/Species Group
Gulfkillifish
Hogchoker
Leatherjacket
Mackerel
Menhaden species
Other (commercial)
Other (forage)
Other (recreational)
Pinfish
Pink shrimp
Red drum
Scaled sardine
Sea basses
Searobin
Sheepshead
Silver perch
Spot
Spotted seatrout
Stone crab
Striped mullet
Tidewater silverside
Recreational
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Commercial
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Forage
X
X
X
X
X
The life history data used in EPA's analysis and associated data sources are provided in Appendix El of this
report.
E2-2 I&E Data Evaluated
Table E2-2 lists the facility I&E data evaluated by EPA to estimate current I&E rates for the region. See
Chapter Al of Part A for a discussion of the methods used to evaluate the I&E data.
Table E2-2: Phase II Facility I&E Data Evaluated for the Gulf of Mexico Analysis
Facilities Years of Data
Big Bend (FL) 1976-1979
Crystal River (FL) 1984
P H Robinson (TX) 1978
Webster (TX) 1978
E2-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Chapter E2
E2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Gulf Region Expressed
as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Yield
Table E2-3 provides EPA's estimate of the annual age-1 equivalents and foregone fishery yield resulting from the
impingement of aquatic species at facilities located in the Gulf region. Table E2-4 displays this information for
entrainment. Note that in these tables, "total yield" includes direct losses of harvested species and the yield of
harvested species that is lost due to losses of forage species (trophic transfer).
Table E2-3: Estimated Current Annual Impingement at Phase III Facilities in
the Gulf Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Atlantic croaker
Bay anchovy
Black drum
Blue crab
Chain pipefish
Gobies
Gulfkillifish
Hogchoker
Leatherjacket
Mackerels
Menhaden species
Other (commercial)
Other (forage)
Other (recreational)
Pinfish
Pink shrimp
Red drum
Scaled sardine
Sea basses
Searobin
Sheepshead
Silver perch
Spot
Spotted seatrout
Stone crab
Striped mullet
Tidewater silverside
Trophic transfer3
a. Contribution of forage fish to yield based
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
752,000
1,350,000
5,900
2,460,000
28,300
10,400
16,500
39,000
314,000
3,690
2,260,000
493,000
819,000
183,000
13,100
9,770,000
37,000
62,000
329
426,000
192
128,000
173,000
574,000
84,600
169,000
100,000
<1
on trophic transfer (see
Total Yield
(Ibs)
155,000
<1
26,600
30,300
<1
<1
<1
<1
39,400
511
446,000
97,400
<1
36,200
557
91,900
167,000
<1
76
17,600
1
15
19,400
513,000
61,800
80,400
<1
352
Chapter A 1).
E2-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Chapter E2
Table E2-4: Estimated Current Annual Entrainment at Phase III Facilities in
the Gulf Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Fishery Yield
Age-1 Equivalents Total Yield
Species/Species Group (#s) (Ibs)
Atlantic croaker 339 70
Bay anchovy 2,490,000 <1
Black drum 1,180,000 5,300,000
Blue crab 3,660,000 45,100
Chain pipefish 14,300 <1
Gobies 1,130,000 <1
Gulfkillifish <1 <1
Hogchoker 10,700 <1
Leather) acket 6,800 852
Mackerels <1 <1
Menhaden species 10,400 2,050
Other (commercial) 6,920 1,370
Other (forage) 3,730,000 <1
Other (recreational) 25,000 4,950
Pinfish 216,000 9,200
Pink shrimp 1,070,000 10,100
Red drum 142 642
Scaled sardine 142,000 <1
Sea basses <1 <1
Searobin 73,700 3,040
Sheepshead 7,030 24
Silver perch 1,020,000 118
Spot 12,100 1,360
Spotted seatrout 26,000 23,300
Stone crab 5,800 4,240
Striped mullet 529,000 252,000
Tidewater silverside 144,000 <1
Trophic transfer3 <1 9,340
a. Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
E2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region Under
Alternative Options
Table E2-5 presents estimated reductions in I&E under the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200 MGD
for All Waterbodies" option, and the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option. Reductions under all other
options are presented in Appendix E2.
E2-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Chapter E2
Table E2-5: Estimated Reductions in I&E Under Alternative Options
Age-1 Equivalents Foregone Fishery Yield
Option (#s) (Ibs)
50 MGD All Option 19,400,000 4,200,000
200 MGD All Option 12,500,000 2,900,000
100 MGD Option 19,400,000 4,200,000
E2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating Recreational and Commercial Losses
The lost yield estimates presented in Tables E2-3 and E2-4 are expressed as total pounds and include losses to
both commercial and recreational catch. To estimate the economic value of these losses, total yield was
partitioned between commercial and recreational fisheries based on the landings in each fishery. Table E2-6
presents the percentage impacts assumed for each species/species group. Commercial and recreational fishing
benefits are presented in Chapters E3 and E4.
Table E2-6: Percentage of Total Impacts Occurring to the Commercial and
Recreational Fisheries and Commercial Value per Pound for Species Impinged and
Entrained at Gulf of Mexico Facilities
Species/Species Group
Atlantic croaker
Black drum
Blue crab
Leatherjacket
Mackerels
Menhaden species
Other (commercial)
Other (recreational)
Pinfish
Pink shrimp
Red drum
Sea basses
Searobin
Sheepshead
Silver perch
Spot
Spotted seatrout
Stone crab
Striped mullet
Trophic transferd
Percent Impact to
Recreational
Fishery3'15
88.2%
93.0%
0.0%
0.0%
73.5%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
86.0%
100.0%
67.0%
100.0%
23.9%
100.0%
0.0%
10.1%
58.0%
Percent Impact to
Commercial Fishery0
11.8%
7.0%
100.0%
100.0%
26.5%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
14.0%
0.0%
33.0%
0.0%
76.1%
0.0%
100.0%
89.9%
42.0%
a. Based on landings from 1993 to 2001 in Alabama, Florida (west coast), Louisiana, and
Mississippi. Recreational landings data for Texas are not collected by NOAA Fisheries.
b Calculated using recreational landings data from NMFS (2003b,
..http://www.st.nmfs.gov/recreational/queries/catch/snapshot.htmL) and commercial landings
data from NMFS (2003a, ..http://www.st.nmfs.gov/commercial/landings/annual landings.html..).
°. Calculated using commercial landings data from NMFS (2003a).
d Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
E2-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Chapter E2
See Chapter E3 for results of the commercial fishing benefits analysis and Chapter E4 for recreational fishing
results. As discussed in Chapter A8, benefits were discounted to account for (1) the time to achieve compliance
once a Phase III final regulation for existing facilities would have become effective, and (2) the time it takes for
fish spared from I&E to reach a harvestable age.
E2-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix E2
Appendix E2: Reductions in I&E Under
Supplemental Policy Options
Table E2-1: Estimated Reductions in I&E in the
Gulf of Mexico Region Under Eight Supplemental Options
Option
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
Foregone Fishery Yield
(Ibs)
I-only Everywhere
I&E like Phase II
I&E Everywhere
I-only Everywhere
I&E like Phase II
I&E Everywhere
I-only Everywhere
I&E Everywhere
Electric Generators 2-50 MGD
0
0
0
Manufacturers 2-50 MGD
543,000
855,000
855,000
Manufacturers 50+ MGD
10,400,000
19,400,000
0
0
0
47,800
162,000
162,000
917,000
4,200,000
App. E2-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Chapter E3
Chapter E3: Commercial Fishing Benefits
Chapter Contents
E3-1
E3-2
Baseline Commercial Losses E3-1
Expected Benefits Under Regulatory
Analysis Options E3 -3
E3-2.1 Commercial Fishing Benefits of
the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies"
Option E3-3
E3-2.2 Commercial Fishing Benefits of
the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies"
Option E3-4
E3-2.3 Commercial Fishing Benefits of
the "100 MOD for Certain
Waterbodies" Option E3-4
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the commercial
fishing benefits analysis for the Gulf of Mexico
region. The chapter presents EPA's estimates of
baseline (i.e., current) annual commercial fishery
losses from impingement and entrainment (I&E) at
potentially regulated facilities in the Gulf of Mexico
region and annual reductions in these losses under
the regulatory options for Phase III existing
facilities.1:
>• the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option,
» the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option,
and
»• the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies"
option.
The chapter then presents the estimated benefits to commercial fisheries from eliminating baseline losses from
I&E, and the expected benefits under the regulatory options.
Chapter A4, "Methods for Estimating Commercial Fishing Benefits," details the methods used by EPA to
estimate the commercial fishing benefits of reducing and eliminating I&E losses.
EPA considered a wide range of policy options in developing this regulation. In addition to the regulatory options,
EPA evaluated several supplemental options. Appendix E3 presents results of the commercial fishing benefits
analysis for the supplemental options. For additional information on the options, please see the TDD.
E3-1 Baseline Commercial Losses
Table E3-1 provides EPA's estimate of the value of gross revenues lost in commercial fisheries resulting from the
impingement of aquatic species at facilities in the Gulf of Mexico region. Table E3-2 displays this information for
entrainment. Total annualized revenue losses are approximately $1,020,218 (undiscounted).
1 See the Introduction to this report for a description of the primary analysis options.
E3-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Chapter E3
Table E3-1: Annualized Commercial Fishing Gross Revenues Lost due
to Impingement at Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Species"
Atlantic croaker
Black drum
Blue crab
Leatherjacket
Mackerels
Menhaden
Otherb
Pink shrimp
Sea basses
Spot
Stone crab
Striped mullet
Trophic transfer0
Total
Estimated
Pounds of
Harvest Lost
18,278
1,873
30,298
39,401
135
445,871
97,415
91,899
11
14,736
61,812
72,276
148
874,153
Commercial
Value per
Pound
(2004$)
$0.25
$0.70
$0.69
$1.13
$0.48
$0.06
$0.56
$2.49
$0.57
$0.29
$1.54
$0.71
$0.65
Estimated Value
of Harvest Lost
(2004$)
Undiscounted
$4,525
$1,315
$20,842
$44,584
$65
$25,326
$54,388
$228,779
$6
$4,240
$95,264
$51,195
$97
$530,626
a. Species included are only those that have baseline losses greater than $1.
b Includes only species that are commercially, but not recreationally, fished.
°. Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter
Al).
Table E3-2: Annualized Commercial Fishing Gross Revenues Lost due
to Entrainment at Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Species3
Atlantic croaker
Black drum
Blue crab
Leatherjacket
Menhaden
Otherb
Pink shrimp
Sheepshead
Spot
Stone crab
Striped mullet
Trophic transfer0
Total
Estimated
Pounds of
Harvest Lost
8
373,428
45,092
852
2,045
1,367
10,060
8
1,032
4,236
226,160
3,923
668,211
Commercial
Value per
Pound
(2004$)
$0.25
$0.70
$0.69
$1.13
$0.06
$0.56
$2.49
$0.34
$0.29
$1.54
$0.71
$0.65
Estimated Value
of Harvest Lost
(2004$)
Undiscounted
$2
$262,100
$31,018
$965
$116
$763
$25,045
$3
$297
$6,528
$160,194
$2,562
$489,593
a. Species included are only those that have baseline losses greater than $1.
b Includes only species that are commercially, but not recreationally, fished.
E3-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Chapter E3
Table E3-2: Annualized Commercial Fishing Gross Revenues Lost due
to Entrainment at Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Commercial Estimated Value
Estimated Value per of Harvest Lost
Pounds of Pound (2004$)
Species" Harvest Lost (2004$) Undiscounted
°. Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter
Al).
E3-2 Expected Benefits Under Regulatory Analysis Options
As described in Chapter A4, EPA estimates for Gulf of Mexico that, depending on species, 0 to 79% of the gross
revenue losses represent surplus losses to producers, assuming no change in prices or fishing costs. Earlier EPA
analysis assumed a rate of 40%. The 0% estimate, of course, results in loss estimates of $0.
The expected reductions in I&E attributable to changes at facilities required by the "50 MGD for All
Waterbodies" option (50 MGD All option) are 51.4% for impingement and 57.9% for entrainment; the expected
reductions for the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option (200 MGD All option) are 29.9% for impingement and
41.8% for entrainment; and the expected reductions for the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option
(100 MGD CWB option) are 51.4% for impingement and 57.9% for entrainment. Total annualized benefits are
estimated by applying these estimated reductions to the annual baseline producer surplus loss. As presented in
Tables E3-3, E3-4, and E3-5, this results in total annualized benefits of up to approximately $283,218 for the
50 MGD All option, $188,205 for the 200 MGD All option, and $283,218 forthe 100 MGD CWB option,
assuming a 3% discount rate and a species-specific net benefits ratio.-2.
E3-2.1 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table E3-3 shows EPA's analysis of the commercial benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option for the
Gulf of Mexico region. The table shows that this option, assuming a species-specific net benefits ratio, will result
in undiscounted total annualized commercial benefits of approximately $338,493. When evaluated at 3% and
7% discount rates, the annualized commercial benefits are $283,218 and $225,425, respectively.
Table E3-3: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to
the 50 MGD All Option at Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region (2004$)a
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost — 0%
$530,625
$0
$489,593
$0
$1,020,218
$0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $267,680 $346,483 $614,163
Expected reduction due to rule 51.4% 57.9%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $338,493
3% discount rate $283,218
.. The net benefits ratio is the fractional share of gross revenue associated with net benefits, by gear and vessel type.
See Chapter A4, section A4-10, for a description of the species-specific net benefits ratios and how they are calculated.
E3-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Chapter E3
7% discount rate $225,425
a. Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter II for a timeline of benefits.
E3-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Chapter E3
E3-2.2 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table E3-4 shows EPA's analysis of the commercial benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option for
the Gulf of Mexico region. The table shows that this option, assuming a species-specific net benefits ratio, will
result in undiscounted total annualized commercial benefits of approximately $224,937. When evaluated at 3%
and 7% discount rates, the annualized commercial benefits are $188,205 and $149,800, respectively.
Table E3-4: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to
The 200 MGD All Option at Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region (2004$)".
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $530,625 $489,593 $1,020,218
Producer surplus lost — 0% $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $267,680 $346,483 $614,163
Expected reduction due to rule 29.9% 41.8%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $224,937
3% discount rate $188,205
7% discount rate $149,800
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter II for a timeline of benefits.
E3-2.3 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
Table E3-5 shows EPA's analysis of the commercial benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option
for the Gulf of Mexico region. The table shows that this option, assuming a species-specific net benefits ratio, will
result in undiscounted total annualized commercial benefits of approximately $338,493. When evaluated at 3%
and 7% discount rates, the annualized commercial benefits are $283,218 and $225,425, respectively.
E3-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Chapter E3
Table E3-5: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to
the 100 MGD CWB Option at Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region (2004$)."
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $530,625 $489,593 $1,020,218
Producer surplus lost — 0% $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $267,680 $346,483 $614,163
Expected reduction due to rule 51.4% 57.9%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $338,493
3% discount rate $283,218
7% discount rate $225,425
a. Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter II for a timeline of benefits.
E3-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Appendix E3
Appendix E3: Commercial Fishing Benefits
Under Supplemental Policy Options
Introduction
Appendix Contents
Chapter E3 presents EPA's estimates of the
E3-1 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the
Supplemental Options E3-2
commercial benefits of the regulatory options for the
section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities in the Gulf
of Mexico region. To facilitate comparisons among
the options, this appendix presents estimates of the
commercial fishing benefits of several supplemental options that EPA evaluated in preparation for this rule:
*• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option;
» "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option;
>• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option;
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option;
•> "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option;
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option;
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere" option; and
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I&E Everywhere" option.
Commercial fishing benefits presented in this chapter were estimated using the benefit transfer approach
discussed in Chapter E3 and in Chapter A4, "Methods for Estimating Commercial Fishing Benefits." For
additional information on the options, please see the TDD.
App. E3-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Appendix E3
E3-1 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the Supplemental Options
No facilities located in the Gulf of Mexico region are electric generators with design intake flows greater than
2 MOD and less than 50 MOD, so no facilities would have technology requirements under the "Electric
Generators 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option, the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option,
or the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option. Thus no commercial benefits are expected under
these options in the Gulf of Mexico region.
Tables E3-1 through E3-5 present EPA's estimates of the annualized commercial benefits of the remaining
supplemental options in the Gulf of Mexico region.
Table E3-1: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
"Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" Option at Facilities in the
Gulf of Mexico Region (2004$)a
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost — 0%
Impingement
$530,625
$0
Entrainment
$489,593
$0
Total
$1,020,218
$0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $267,680 $346,483 $614,163
Expected reduction due to rule 3% 0%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
$0
$7,174
$6,002
$4,778
a. Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter II for
a timeline of benefits.
App. E3-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Appendix E3
Table E3-2: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
"Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" Option at Facilities in the
Gulf of Mexico Region (2004$)a
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost — 0%
Impingement
$530,625
$0
Entrainment
$489,593
$0
Total
$1,020,218
$0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $267,680 $346,483 $614,163
Expected reduction due to rule 3% 2%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $14,138
3% discount rate $11,829
7% discount rate $9,416
a. Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter II for
a timeline of benefits.
Table E3-3: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
"Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" Option at Facilities in the
Gulf of Mexico Region (2004$)."
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost — 0%
Impingement
$530,625
$0
Entrainment
$489,593
$0
Total
$1,020,218
$0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $267,680 $346,483 $614,163
Expected reduction due to rule 3% 2%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $14,138
3% discount rate $11,829
7% discount rate $9,416
a. Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter II for
a timeline of benefits.
App. E3-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Appendix E3
Table E3-4: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
"Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere" Option at Facilities in the
Gulf of Mexico Region (2004$)a
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost — 0%
Impingement
$530,625
$0
Entrainment
$489,593
$0
Total
$1,020,218
$0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $267,680 $346,483 $614,163
Expected reduction due to rule 51% 0%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
$0
$137,568
$115,103
$91,616
a. Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter II for
a timeline of benefits.
Table E3-5: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
"Manufacturers 50+ MGD I&E Everywhere" Option at Facilities in the
Gulf of Mexico Region (2004$)."
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost — 0%
Impingement
$530,625
$0
Entrainment
$489,593
$0
Total
$1,020,218
$0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $267,680 $346,483 $614,163
Expected reduction due to rule 51% 58%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
$0
$338,493
$283,218
$225,425
a. Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter II for
a timeline of benefits.
App. E3-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Chapter E4
Chapter E4: Recreational Use Benefits
Chapter Contents
E4-1
E4-2
Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-
Analysis E4-1
E4-1.1 Baseline Losses and Reductions in
Recreational Fishery Losses Under
the Regulatory Options E4-2
E4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits
from Eliminating Baseline I&E
Losses E4-3
E4-1.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of
the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies"
Option E4-4
E4-1.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of
the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies"
Option E4-5
E4-1.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the
"100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies"
Option E4-6
Limitations and Uncertainty E4-6
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the recreational
fishing benefits analysis for the Gulf of Mexico
region. The chapter presents EPA's estimates of
baseline (i.e., current) annual recreational fishery
losses from impingement and entrainment (I&E) at
potentially regulated facilities in the Gulf of Mexico
region and annual reductions in these losses under
the regulatory options for Phase III existing
facilities.1.:
» the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option,
> the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option,
and
> the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies"
option.
The chapter then presents the estimated welfare gain
to Gulf of Mexico anglers from eliminating baseline
recreational fishing losses from I&E and the
expected benefits under the regulatory options.
EPA estimated the recreational benefits of reducing and eliminating I&E losses using a benefit transfer
methodology based on a meta-analysis of the marginal value of catching different species offish. This meta-
analysis is discussed in detail in Chapter A5, "Recreational Fishing Benefits Methodology."
EPA considered a wide range of policy options in developing this regulation. In addition to the regulatory options,
EPA evaluated several supplemental options. Appendix E4 presents results of the recreational fishing benefits
analysis for the supplemental options. For additional information on the options, please see the TDD.
E4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-Analysis
EPA estimated the recreational welfare gain from the reduction in annual I&E losses expected under the policy
options, and the welfare gain from eliminating I&E at potentially regulated facilities, using a benefit transfer
approach. As discussed in Chapter A5, the Agency used a meta-analysis regression equation to estimate the
marginal recreational value per additional fish caught by anglers, for different species in different regions. Since
I&E at potentially regulated facilities affects a variety of species, EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to
one of the general species groups used in the meta-analysis. The Agency then calculated the economic value of
reducing or eliminating baseline I&E losses, for each species group, by multiplying the value per fish for that
species group by the number offish in the group that are lost in the baseline or saved under the policy options..2
1 See the Introduction to this report for a description of the regulatory options.
2 The estimates of I&E presented in this chapter include only the fraction of impinged and entrained recreational
fish that would be caught by anglers. The total amount of I&E of recreational species is actually much higher.
E4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Chapter E4
In general, the fit between the species with I&E losses and the species groups in the meta-analysis was good.
However, EPA's estimates of baseline I&E losses and reductions in I&E under the policy options included losses
of "unidentified" species. The "unidentified" group includes fish lost indirectly through trophic transfer, as well as
species for which no species information was available.3. Rather than using the meta-analysis regression to try to
predict the value per fish for an "unidentified" species, EPA assumed that per-fish values for these species can be
approximated by the weighted average value per fish for all species affected by I&E in the Gulf of Mexico
region..4
E4-1.1 Baseline Losses and Reductions in Recreational Fishery Losses Under the Regulatory Options
Table E4-1 presents EPA's estimates of baseline (i.e., current) annual recreational I&E losses at potentially
regulated facilities, and annual reductions in these losses under each of the regulatory options, in the Gulf of
Mexico region. The table shows that total baseline losses to recreational fisheries are 788.0 thousand fish per year.
In comparison, the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" and "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" options prevent
losses of 430.9 thousand fish per year, and the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option prevents losses of 282.4
thousand fish per year. Of all the affected species, black drum and spotted seatrout have the highest losses in the
baseline and the highest prevented losses under the regulatory options.
3 In addition to recreational fish that are lost because they are impinged or entrained, some recreational fish are lost
because the forage fish that they feed on are impinged or entrained, and thus removed from the food chain. These
trophic transfer losses of recreational species are included in EPA's estimates of total I&E losses. Since it is difficult to
predict which recreational species would be affected by losses of forage fish, these losses are classified as
"unidentified" recreational species. Also included in the "unidentified" group are losses offish that were reported by
facilities without information about their exact species.
EPA used the estimated level of baseline recreational losses for each species group as a weighting factor.
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Chapter E4
Table E4-1: Baseline Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III
Facilities and Reductions in Recreational Losses Under the Regulatory Options in the
Gulf of Mexico Region
Species3
Mackerels
Red drum
Spotted seatrout
Total (small game)
Atlantic croaker
Black drum
Pinfish
Sea bass
Searobin
Sheepshead
Silver perch
Spot
Striped mullet
Total (other saltwater)
Total (unidentified)
Total (all species)
Baseline Annual
Recreational Fishing
Losses
(# of fish)
526.7
10,374.9
218,691.7
229,593.3
81,331.5
307,109.6
53,772.5
54.4
45,435.6
9.3
313.3
11,962.2
11,627.7
511,616.2
46,818.1
788,027.6
Annual Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses
(# of fish)
50 MGD All"
270.7
5,334.6
113,018.0
118,623.2
41,800.9
177,991.7
30,980.1
28.0
23,792.5
5.4
179.4
6,199.3
6,557.1
287,534.4
24,745.7
430,903.4
200 MGD All
157.3
3,103.4
66,454.1
69,714.9
24,295.7
128,328.8
22,133.6
16.2
14,372.7
3.9
126.9
3,666.5
4,528.4
197,472.8
15,226.3
282,414.1
100 MGD CWBb
270.7
5,334.6
113,018.0
118,623.2
41,800.9
177,991.7
30,980.1
28.0
23,792.5
5.4
179.4
6,199.3
6,557.1
287,534.4
24,745.7
430,903.4
a. EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to one of the species groups used in the meta-analysis. The "other
saltwater" group includes bottomfish and other miscellaneous species. The "unidentified" group includes fish lost
indirectly through trophic transfer and fish reported lost without information about their species.
b Annual reductions in recreational I&E losses are the same in the Gulf of Mexico region for the "50 MGD for All
Waterbodies" and "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" options.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
E4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses
Table E4-2 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the welfare gain to recreational anglers from eliminating
baseline recreational fishery losses at potentially regulated facilities in the Gulf of Mexico region. The table
presents baseline annual recreational I&E losses, the estimated value per fish, and the monetized annual welfare
gain from eliminating recreational losses, for each species group. Total baseline recreational fishing losses for the
Gulf of Mexico region are 788.0 thousand fish per year. The undiscounted annual welfare gain to Gulf of Mexico
anglers from eliminating these losses is $2.43 million (2004$), with lower and upper bounds of $1.29 million and
$4.68 million. Evaluated at 3% and 7% discount rates, the mean annualized welfare gain of eliminating these
losses is $2.36 million and $2.27 million, respectively. The majority of monetized recreational losses from I&E
under baseline conditions are attributable to losses of black drum and spotted seatrout.
E4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Chapter E4
Table E4-2: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E at Potentially Regulated
Phase III Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region (2004$)
Baseline Annual
Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish1
Annualized Benefits
from Eliminating
Recreational Fishing Losses
(thousands)0'1*
Species Group
Small game
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)c
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)c
(thousands of fish)3
229.6
511.6
46.8
788.0
788.0
788.0
Low
$2.05
$1.46
$1.64
Mean
$4.74
$2.34
$3.08
High
$10.79
$3.77
$5.94
Low
$470.8
$746.4
$76.9
$1,294.1
$1,255.3
$1,208.8
Mean
$1,088.3
$1,196.4
$144.3
$2,429.0
$2,356.0
$2,268.8
High
$2,476.7
$1,929.5
$278.3
$4,684.5
$4,543.8
$4,375.6
a. Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have been caught by
recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
°. Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying baseline losses by the estimated value per fish.
d Annualized values represent the total welfare gain over the time frame of the analysis from eliminating recreational
losses, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
and annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
E4-1.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table E4-3 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies"
option for the Gulf of Mexico region. The table presents the annual reduction in recreational I&E losses expected
under this option, the estimated value per fish, and annual monetized recreational welfare gain from this option,
by species group. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 430.9 thousand fish per year,
resulting in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $1.31 million (2004$), with lower and upper
bounds of $0.70 million and $2.51 million. Evaluated at 3% and 7% discount rates, the mean annualized welfare
gain from this reduction in recreational losses is $1.10 million and $0.87 million, respectively. The majority of
benefits result from reduced losses of black drum and spotted seatrout.
E4-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Chapter E4
Table E4-3: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
in the Gulf of Mexico Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish1
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)0'1*
Species Group
Small game
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)c
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)c
(thousands of fish)3
118.6
287.5
24.7
430.9
430.9
430.9
Low
$2.05
$1.46
$1.64
Mean
$4.74
$2.34
$3.08
High
$10.79
$3.77
$5.94
Low
$243.3
$419.5
$40.6
$703.4
$588.5
$468.4
Mean
$562.3
$672.4
$76.3
$1,310.9
$1,096.9
$873.0
High
$1,279.6
$1,084.4
$147.1
$2,511.1
$2,101.1
$1,672.3
a. Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have been caught by
recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
°. Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual reduction in recreational losses by the estimated value
per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
E4-1.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table E4-4 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational benefits of the "200 MGD for All
Waterbodies" option for the Gulf of Mexico region. The table presents the annual reduction in recreational I&E
losses expected under this option, the estimated value per fish, and annual monetized recreational welfare gain
from this option, by species group. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 282.4 thousand
fish per year, resulting in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $0.84 million (2004$), with
lower and upper bounds of $0.46 million and $1.59 million. Evaluated at 3% and 7% discount rates, the mean
annualized welfare gain from this reduction in recreational losses is $0.70 million and $0.56 million, respectively.
The majority of benefits result from reduced losses of black drum and spotted seatrout.
E4-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Chapter E4
Table E4-4: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
in the Gulf of Mexico Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fishb
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)
c,d
Species Group
Small game
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)c
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)c
(thousands of fish)3
69.7
197.5
15.2
282.4
282.4
282.4
Low
$2.05
$1.46
$1.64
Mean
$4.74
$2.34
$3.08
High
$10.79
$3.77
$5.94
Low
$143.0
$288.1
$25.0
$456.1
$381.6
$303.7
Mean
$330.4
$461.8
$46.9
$839.2
$702.1
$558.9
High
$752.0
$744.7
$90.5
$1,587.3
$1,328.1
$1,057.1
a. Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have been caught by
recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
°. Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual reduction in recreational losses by the estimated value
per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
E4-1.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
All potentially regulated facilities in the Gulf of Mexico region that would have to install new technology under
the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option and "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option have design intake
flows that are greater than 100 MGD and are located on coastal waterbodies. Because the requirements under the
50 MGD option and the 100 MGD option are identical for this class of facilities, the estimated I&E reductions
and recreational fishing benefits from these two options are identical. Thus, the estimated recreational fishing
benefits presented in Table E4-3 also apply to the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option. The table shows
that this option reduces recreational losses by 430.9 thousand fish per year, resulting in an undiscounted welfare
gain to recreational anglers of $ 1.31 million (2004$), with lower and upper bounds of $0.70 million and
$2.51 million. Evaluated at 3% and 7% discount rates, the mean annualized welfare gain from this reduction in
recreational losses is $1.10 million and $0.87 million, respectively. The majority of benefits result from reduced
losses of black drum and spotted seatrout.
E4-2 Limitations and Uncertainty
The results of the benefit transfer based on a meta-analysis represent EPA's best estimate of the recreational
benefits of the regulatory options. Nonetheless, there are a number of limitations and uncertainties inherent in
these estimates. General limitations pertaining to the development of the meta-analysis model, the use of the
model to estimate per-fish values, and the validity of the benefit transfer are discussed in section A5-3.3e and
section A5-5.3 of Chapter A5.
E4-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix E4
Appendix E4: Recreational Use Benefits
Under Supplemental Policy Options
Appendix Contents
E4-1
E4-2
Recreational Fishing Benefits of the
Supplemental Options E4-1
E4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in
Recreational Fishing Losses
Under the Supplemental Options....E4-1
E4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits of
the Supplemental Options E4-3
Comparison of Recreational Fishing
Benefits by Option E4-6
Introduction
Chapter E4 presents EPA's estimates of the
recreational benefits of the regulatory options for the
section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities in the Gulf
of Mexico region. To facilitate comparisons among
the options, this appendix presents estimates of the
recreational fishing benefits of several supplemental
options that EPA evaluated in preparation for this
rule:
> "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I-only
Everywhere" option,
*• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option;
*• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option;
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option;
> "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option;
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option;
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere" option; and
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I&E Everywhere" option.
Recreational fishing benefits presented in this chapter were estimated using the benefit transfer approach
discussed in Chapter E4 and in Chapter A5, "Recreational Fishing Benefits Methodology."
E4-1 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Supplemental Options
E4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses Under the Supplemental Options
Table E4-1 presents EPA's estimates of the annual reduction in baseline (i.e., current) recreational fishing losses
from impingement and entrainment (I&E) in the Gulf of Mexico region under the supplemental options. For more
information on the options, please see the TDD.
App. E4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix E4
Table E4-1: Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E Under the Supplemental Options in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Annual Reduction in Recreational Losses
(# of fish)
Electric Generators 2-50 MGD
Manufacturers 2-50 MGD
Manufacturers 50+ MGD
Species"
I-only
Everywhere
I&E like
Phase II
I&E
Everywhere
I-only
Everywhere
I&E like
Phase IIC
I&E
Everywhere0
I-only
Everywhere
I&E
Everywhere
Mackerels
Red drum
Spotted seatrout
Total (small game)
Atlantic croaker
Black drum
Pinfish
Sea bass
Searobin
Sheepshead
Silver perch
Spot
Striped mullet
Total (other saltwater)
Total (unidentified)
Total (all species)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14.1
277.0
5,606.5
5,897.6
2,178.7
41.1
82.3
1.5
1,038.2
0.0
0.9
299.6
75.5
3,717.7
976.6
10,591.9
14.1
277.8
5,797.3
6,089.2
2,179.4
6,183.2
1,101.4
1.5
1,172.8
0.2
6.5
315.3
252.6
11,212.9
1,185.2
18,487.4
14.1
277.8
5,797.3
6,089.2
2,179.4
6,183.2
1,101.4
1.5
1,172.8
0.2
6.5
315.3
252.6
11,212.9
1,185.2
18,487.4
270.7
5,311.5
107,512.2
113,094.4
41,779.6
787.7
1,578.4
28.0
19,907.9
0.1
18.0
5,745.3
1,447.2
71,292.2
18,727.7
203,114.3
270.7
5,334.6
113,018.0
118,623.2
41,800.9
177,991.7
30,980.1
28.0
23,792.5
5.4
179.4
6,199.3
6,557.1
287,534.4
24,745.7
430,903.4
a. EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to one of the species groups used in the meta-analysis. The "other saltwater" group includes bottomfish
miscellaneous species. The "unidentified" group includes fish lost indirectly through trophic transfer and fish reported lost without information about
b No facilities located in the Gulf of Mexico region are electric generators with design intake flows greater than 2 MGD and less than 50 MGD. Thus
would have technology requirements under the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option, the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E
option, or the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option.
°. Annual reductions in recreational I&E losses are the same in the Gulf of Mexico region for the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" and
"Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" options.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
and other
their species.
no facilities
like Phase II"
App. E4-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix E4
E4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Supplemental Options
Tables E4-2 through E4-5 present EPA's estimates of the annualized recreational benefits of the supplemental
options in the Gulf of Mexico region.
No facilities located in the Gulf of Mexico region are electric generators with design intake flows greater than
2 MGD and less than 50 MGD, so no facilities would have technology requirements under the "Electric
Generators 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option, the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option,
or the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option. Thus no recreational benefits are expected under
these options in the Gulf of Mexico region.
Table E4-2: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" Option
in the Gulf of Mexico Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Species Group
Small game
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)
5.9
3.7
1.0
10.6
10.6
10.6
Low
$2.05
$1.46
$1.64
Mean
$4.74
$2.34
$3.08
High
$10.79
$3.77
$5.94
Low
$12.1
$5.4
$1.6
$19.1
$16.0
$12.7
Mean
$28.0
$8.7
$3.0
$39.7
$33.2
$26.4
High
$63.6
$14.0
$5.8
$83.4
$69.8
$55.6
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. E4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix E4
Annual reductions in recreational I&E losses are the same in the Gulf of Mexico region for the "Manufacturers
2-50 MOD I&E Everywhere" option as for the "Manufacturers 2-50 MOD I&E like Phase II" option. Therefore,
the annualized recreational fishing benefits for these two options are the same, and are presented together in
Table E4-3.
Table E4-3: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" Option
and the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" Option in the Gulf of Mexico Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Species Group
Small game
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)
6.1
11.2
1.2
18.5
18.5
18.5
Low
$2.05
$1.46
$1.64
Mean
$4.74
$2.34
$3.08
High
$10.79
$3.77
$5.94
Low
$12.5
$16.4
$1.9
$30.8
$25.8
$20.5
Mean
$28.9
$26.2
$3.7
$58.7
$49.1
$39.1
High
$65.7
$42.3
$7.0
$115.0
$96.2
$76.6
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. E4-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix E4
Table E4-4: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere" Option in
the Gulf of Mexico Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Species Group
Small game
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)
113.1
71.3
18.7
203.1
203.1
203.1
Low
$2.05
$1.46
$1.64
Mean
$4.74
$2.34
$3.08
High
$10.79
$3.77
$5.94
Low
$231.9
$104.0
$30.8
$366.7
$306.8
$244.2
Mean
$536.1
$166.7
$57.7
$760.5
$636.3
$506.5
High
$1,220.0
$268.9
$111.3
$1,600.2
$1,338.9
$1,065.7
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Table E4-5: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I&E Everywhere" Option in
the Gulf of Mexico Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Species Group
Small game
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)
118.6
287.5
24.7
430.9
430.9
430.9
Low
$2.05
$1.46
$1.64
Mean
$4.74
$2.34
$3.08
High
$10.79
$3.77
$5.94
Low
$243.3
$419.5
$40.6
$703.4
$588.5
$468.4
Mean
$562.3
$672.4
$76.3
$1,310.9
$1,096.9
$873.0
High
$1,279.6
$1,084.4
$147.1
$2,511.1
$2,101.1
$1,672.3
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. E4-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix E4
E4-2 Comparison of Recreational Fishing Benefits by Option
Table E4-6 compares the recreational fishing benefits of several supplemental options.
Table E4-6: Annual Recreational Benefits of the Supplemental Options in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Policy Option
Annual Reduction
in Recreational Fishing
Losses from I&E
(thousands of fish)
Undiscounted Recreational Fishing Benefits
(thousands; 2004$)a
Low
Mean
High
Electric Generators 2-50 MGDb
I-only Everywhere
I&E like Phase II
I&E Everywhere
0.0
0.0
0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Manufacturers 2-50 MGD
I-only Everywhere
I&E like Phase If.
I&E Everywhere0
10.6
18.5
18.5
$19.1
$30.8
$30.8
$39.7
$58.7
$58.7
$83.4
$115.0
$115.0
Manufacturers 50+ MGD
I-only Everywhere
I&E Everywhere
203.1
430.9
$366.7
$703.4
$760.5
$1,310.9
$1,600.2
$2,511.1
a. These benefit estimates were calculated using the meta-analysis approach discussed in Chapter A5 and Chapter B4.
b No facilities located in the Gulf of Mexico region are electric generators with design intake flows greater than
2 MGD and less than 50 MGD, so no facilities would have technology requirements under the "Electric Generators
2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option, the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option, or the "Electric
Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option. Thus no recreational benefits are expected under these options in the
Gulf of Mexico region.
°. Annual reductions in recreational I&E losses and undiscounted recreational fishing benefits are the same in the Gulf
of Mexico region for the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" and "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E
Everywhere" options.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. E4-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Chapter E5
Chapter E5: Federally Listed T&E Species
in the Gulf of Mexico Region
This chapter lists current federally listed threatened and endangered (T&E) fish and shellfish species in the Gulf
of Mexico Region. This list does not address proposed or candidate species; In addition, fish and shellfish listed
as cave species, marine mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and snails are not included in this chapter.
Table E5-1: Alabama Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
T
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Scientific Name
Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi
Dromus dramas
Elliptoideus sloatianus
Epioblasma florentina walkeri ( = E. walkeri)
Epioblasma othcaloogensis
Epioblasma torulosa torulosa
Leptodea leptodon
Medionidus parvulus
Medionidus penicillatus
Pegiasfabula
Percina antesella
Pleurobema clava
Pleurobema curtum
Pleurobema pyriforme
Pristis pectinata
Quadrula fragosa
Villosa trabalis
Common Name
Gulf sturgeon
Dromedary pearlymussel: entire range except where
listed as experimental populations
Purple bankclimber mussel
Tan riffleshell mussel
Southern acornshell mussel
Tubercled blossom pearlymussel: entire range except
where listed as experimental populations
Scaleshell mussel
Moccasinshell mussel
Gulf moccasinshell mussel
Littlewing pearlymussel
Amber darter
Clubshell mussel: entire range except where listed as
experimental populations
Black clubshell mussel
Oval pigtoe mussel
Smalltooth sawfish
Winged mapleleaf mussel: entire range except where
listed as experimental populations
Cumberland bean pearlymussel: entire range except
where listed as experimental populations
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
E5-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Chapter E5
Table E5-2: Florida Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status Scientific Name
E Acipenser brevirostrum
T Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi
E Amblema neislerii
T Elliptic chipolaensis
T Elliptoideus sloatianus
E Etheostoma okaloosae
E Lampsilis subangulata
E Medionidus penicillatus
E Medionidus simpsonianus
E Pleurobema pyriforme
E Pristis pectinata
Common Name
Shortnose sturgeon
Gulf sturgeon
Fat three-ridge mussel
Chipola slabshell mussel
Purple bankclimber mussel
Okaloosa darter
Shinyrayed pocketbook mussel
Gulf moccasinshell
Ochlockonee moccasinshell
Oval pigtoe mussel
Smalltooth sawfish
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Table E5-3: Louisiana Federally
Status Scientific Name
T Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi
E Lampsilis abrupta
T Margaritifera hembeli
T Potamilus inflatus
E Pristis pectinata
E Scaphirhynchus albus
Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Gulf sturgeon
Pink mucket pearlymussel
Louisiana pearlshell mussel
Alabama heelsplitter ( = inflated) mussel
Smalltooth sawfish
Pallid sturgeon
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Table E5-4: Mississippi Federally
Status Scientific Name
T Lampsilis perovalis
T Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi
E Epioblasma brevidens
E Epioblasma penita
T Etheostoma rubrum
T Medionidus acutissimus
E Pleurobema curtum
E Pleurobema decisum
E Pleurobema marshalli
E Pleurobema perovatum
E Pleurobema taitianum
E Potamilus capax
Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Orangenacre mucket mussel
Gulf sturgeon
Cumberlandian combshell mussel: entire range except
where listed as experimental populations
Southern combshell mussel
Bayou darter
Alabama moccasinshell
Black clubshell mussel
Southern clubshell mussel
Flat pigtoe mussel
Ovate clubshell mussel
Heavy pigtoe mussel
Fat pocketbook mussel
E5-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Chapter E5
Table E5-4: Mississippi
Status Scientific Name
T
E
E
E
E
Source:
Potamilus inflatus
Pristis pectinata
Quadrula stapes
Scaphirhynchus albus
Scaphirhynchus suttkusi
USFWS, 2006a.
Federally Listed T&E Fish and
Shellfish
Common Name
Alabama heelsplitter ( =
Smalltooth sawfish
Stirrupshell mussel
Pallid sturgeon
Alabama sturgeon
inflated) mussel
Table E5-5: Texas Federally
Status Scientific Name
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
Source:
Cyprinodon bovinus
Cyprinodon elegans
Dionda diaboli
Etheostoma fonticola
Gambusia gaigei
Gambusia georgei
Gambusia heterochir
Gambusia nobilis
Hybognathus amarus
Notropis girardi
Pristis pectinata
USFWS, 2006a.
Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Leon Springs pupfish
Comanche Springs pupfish
Devils River minnow
Fountain darter
Big Bend gambusia
San Marcos gambusia
Clear Creek gambusia
Pecos gambusia
Rio Grande silvery minnow
Arkansas River shiner (Arkansas River basin)
Smalltooth sawfish
E5-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment
Part F: The Great Lakes
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Chapter Fl
Chapter Fl: Background
Introduction
Chapter Contents
Fl-1 Facility Characteristics Fl-1
This chapter presents an overview of the potential
Phase III existing facilities in the Great Lakes study
region and summarizes their key cooling water and
compliance characteristics. For further discussion of
the technical and compliance characteristics of potential Phase III existing facilities, refer to the Economic
Analysis for the Final Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities and the Technical Development Document for
the Final Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2006a,c).
Fl-1 Facility Characteristics
The Great Lakes Regional Study includes 17 sample facilities that are potentially subject to the national standards
for Phase III existing facilities. Figure Fl-1 presents a map of these facilities. Thirteen of them are manufacturing
facilities and four are electric generators. Industry-wide, these 17 sample facilities represent 43 facilities..1
1 EPA applied sample weights to the survey respondents to account for non-sampled facilities and facilities that did
not respond to the survey. For more information on EPA's 2000 Section 316(b) Industry Survey, please refer to the
Information Collection Request (U.S. EPA, 2000b).
Fl-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Chapter Fl
Figure Fl-1: Potential Existing Phase III Facilities in the Great Lakes Regional Study"
Potential Phase III Existing Facilities (Count)
O Electric Generating Facility (4) | | Great Lakes Region with Counties
• Manufacturing Facility (13)
70 140 Miles
a. The map includes locations of sample facilities only.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Fl-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Chapter Fl
Table Fl-1 summarizes key technical and compliance characteristics for all potentially regulated Phase III
existing facilities in the Great Lakes study region for the regulatory options considered by EPA for this rule (the
"50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, and the "100 MOD for
Certain Waterbodies" option). Facilities with a design intake flow below the three applicability thresholds would
be subject to permitting based on best professional judgment and are excluded from EPA's analyses.2 Therefore,
a different number of facilities is affected under each option.
Table Fl-1 shows that 43 Phase III existing facilities in the Great Lakes study region would potentially be subject
to the national requirements. Under the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option, the most inclusive of the
regulatory options, 22 facilities would be subject to the national requirements for Phase III existing facilities.
Under the less inclusive "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option, nine facilities would be subject to the national
requirement, and under the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option, eleven facilities would be subject to the
national requirements. One facility in the Great Lakes study region has a recirculating system in the baseline.
Table Fl-1: Technical and Compliance Characteristics of Existing Phase III Facilities (sample-weighted)
Total Number of Facilities (sample-weighted) a
Number of Facilities with Recirculating System in Baseline
Design Intake Flow (MGD)
Number of Facilities by Compliance Response
Fine mesh traveling screens with fish H&R
Velocity cap
New larger intake structure with fine mesh and fish H&R
Passive fine mesh screens
None
Compliance Cost, Discounted at 3%c
Compliance Cost, Discounted at 7%c
All Potentially
Regulated
Facilities
43
1
2,610
5
1
4
11
21
$20.58
$22.32
Regulatory Options
50 MGD
All
22
200 MGD
All
9
100 MGD
CWB
11
.
2,421
5
-
4
9
4
$9.74
$9.84
wb
4
-
-
3
1
$4.41
$4.10
2,214
5
-
-
4
1
$5.28
$4.99
a. Total may not equal compliance response subtotal due to rounding.
b Data withheld because of confidentiality reasons.
°. Annualized pre-tax compliance cost (2004$, millions).
Sources: U.S. EPA, 2000b; U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Also excluded are facilities that are estimated to be baseline closures. For additional information on EPA's
baseline closure analyses, please refer to the Economic Analysis for the Final Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III
Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2006a).
Fl-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Appendix Fl: Life History Parameter Values
Used to Evaluate I&E in the
Great Lakes Region
The tables in this appendix summarize the life history parameter values used by EPA to calculate age-1
equivalents and fishery yield from impingement and entrainment (I&E) data for the Great Lakes region.
Table Fl-1: Alewife Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Sources: Spigarelli
NMFS, 2003a.
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
11.5
5.50
6.21
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
et al, 1981; PG&E National Energy Group,
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0 0.
0 0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001; Froese andPauly,
Weight
(Ibs)
00000128
00000141
0.00478
0.0160
0.0505
0.0764
0.0941
0.108
0.130
0.149
2003; and
App. Fl-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-2: Bass Species (Micropterus spp.)
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
2.70
0.446
0.860
1.17
0.755
1.05
0.867
0.867
0.867
0.867
0.867
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.32
0.21
0.29
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
Life History Parameters"
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000731
0.0000198
0.0169
0.202
0.518
0.733
1.04
1.44
2.24
2.56
2.92
3.30
a. Includes largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, and other sunfish not identified to species level.
Sources: Scott and Grossman, 1973; Carlander, 1977; Wang, 1986; Bartell and Campbell, 2000;
Froese andPauly, 2001; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table Fl-3: Black Bullhead Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
4.61
1.39
0.446
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000312
0.000186
0.00132
0.0362
0.0797
0.137
0.233
0.402
0.679
0.753
0.815
0.823
Sources: Carlander, 1969; Scott and Grossman, 1973; Geo-Marine, Inc., 1978; Froese andPauly,
2001;, andNMFS, 2003a.
APP. Fl-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-4: Black Crappie Life History Parameter
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Sources: Carlander,
NMFS, 2003a.
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.80
0.498
2.93
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
1977; Wang, 1986;
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
Bartell and Campbell,
Fraction
Vulnerable
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2000; Froese
to Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000929
0.00000857
0.0120
0.128
0.193
0.427
0.651
0.888
0.925
0.972
1.08
1.26
andPauly, 2001; and
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Sources: Carlander,
NMFS, 2003a.
Table Fl-5:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.73
0.576
4.62
0.390
0.151
0.735
0.735
0.735
0.735
0.735
0.735
0.735
1977; Wang, 1986;
Bluegill Life History
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
Bartell and Campbell,
Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2000; Froese
to Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000130
0.00000156
0.00795
0.00992
0.0320
0.0594
0.104
0.189
0.193
0.209
0.352
0.393
andPauly, 2001; and
App. Fl-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-6: Brown Bullhead Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Sources:
1.90
4.61
1.39
0.446
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
Carlander, 1969; Geo-Marme, Inc.,
0
0
0
0
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
1978; Froese
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
andPauly, 2001;
to Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.0000192
0.00246
0.0898
0.172
0.278
0.330
0.570
0.582
andNMFS, 200 3 a.
Table Fl-7: Bullhead Species Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
4.61
1.39
0.446
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
Parameters3
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000312
0.000186
0.00132
0.0362
0.0797
0.137
0.233
0.402
0.679
0.753
0.815
0.823
a. Includes black bullhead, stonecat, tadpole madtom, yellow bullhead, and other bullheads not
identified to species level.
Sources: Carlander, 1969; Scott and Grossman, 1973; Geo-Marme, Inc., 1978; Froese andPauly,
2001; andNMFS, 2003a.
App. Fl-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III
- Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-8: Burbot Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Sources:, Schram et al,
1.90
7.13
0.916
0.562
0.562
0.562
0.562
0.562
0.562
0.562
0.562
0.562
0.562
1998; Scott
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
and Grossman, 1998; Snyder,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1998; andNMFS,
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000154
0.00000160
0.0154
0.129
0.513
0.842
1.23
1.99
2.68
2.97
3.35
3.57
4.09
2003a.
App. Fl-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-9: Carp Life History Parameters3
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
4.61
1.39
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000673
0.0000118
0.0225
0.790
1.21
1.81
5.13
5.52
5.82
6.76
8.17
8.55
8.94
9.76
10.2
10.6
11.1
11.5
12.0
12.5
a. Includes bowfin, carp, goldfish, and other similar carps not identified to species level.
Sources: Carlander, 1969; Geo-Marme, Inc., 1978; Wang, 1986; Froese andPauly, 2001; andNMFS,
2003a.
APP. Fl-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-10: Carp/Minnow Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
a. Includes bluntnose
similar minnows not
Sources: Carlander,
Resources, 2003.
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
2.06
2.06
1.00
1.00
1.00
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
.00000115
0.000375
0.00208
0.00585
0.0121
0.0171
minnow, fathead minnow, hornyhead chub, lake chub, longnose dace, and other
identified to species level.
1969; Froese andPauly, 2001; NMFS, 2003 a; and Ohio Department of Natural
Table Fl-11: Crappie Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.80
0.498
2.93
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
a. Includes white crappie and other crappies not identified to the
Sources: Carlander, 1977; Wang, 1986; Bartell and Campbell,
NMFS, 2003a.
Parameters"
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0 0.
0 0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
species level.
2000; Froese andPauly,
Weight
(Ibs)
000000929
.00000857
0.0120
0.128
0.193
0.427
0.651
0.888
0.925
0.972
1.08
1.26
2001; and
App. Fl-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-12: Freshwater Catfish Life
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
4.61
1.39
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
History Parameters"
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000539
0.0000563
0.0204
0.104
0.330
0.728
1.15
1.92
2.41
3.45
4.01
5.06
8.08
8.39
8.53
a. Includes channel catfish and flathead catfish.
Sources: Miller, 1966; Coriander, 1969; Geo-Marine, Inc., 1978; Wang, 1986; Sailaetal, 1997;
Froese andPauly, 2001; .andNMFS, 2003a.
App. Fl-8
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-13: Freshwater Drum Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
(M) (F)
2.27
6.13
2.30
0.310
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
Sources: Scott and Grossman, 1973; Virginia
Pauly, 2001; andNMFS, 2003a.
0
0
0
0
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Tech, 1998; Bartell and Campbell,
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00000295
0.0166
0.0500
0.206
0.438
0.638
0.794
0.950
1.09
1.26
1.44
1.60
1.78
2.00
2000; Froese and
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
a. Includes gizzard
Sources: Wapora,
Table Fl-14: Gizzard
Shad Life History Parameters3
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
(M) (F)
1.90
6.33
0.511
1.45
1.27
0.966
0.873
0.303
0.303
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000487
0.00000663
0.0107
0.141
0.477
0.640
0.885
1.17
1.54
shad and other shad not identified to species level.
1979; Froese and Pauly, 2003; andNMFS, 2003a.
App. Fl-9
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-15: Logperch Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Sources: Carlander,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
1.90
1.90
0.700
0.700
0.700
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1997; Froese andPauly, 2001; andNMFS,
Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003a.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000260
0.000512
0.00434
0.0132
0.0251
0.0377
App. Fl-10
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age 21+
Age 22+
Age 23+
Age 24+
Age 25+
Age 26+
Age 27+
Table Fl-16:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Name (M)
1.08
5.49
5.49
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
Pike Life History Parameters"
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
a. Includes grass pickerel, muskellunge, and northern pike.
Sources: Carlander, 1969,; Pennsylvania, 1999; Froese and Pauly,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2001; andNMFS,
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000189
0.0133
0.0451
0.365
1.10
1.53
2.72
6.19
7.02
8.92
12.3
13.9
16.6
19.0
24.2
25.3
30.0
32.4
34.3
45.6
45.8
47.7
48.8
48.9
49.0
49.1
49.2
49.3
49.4
49.4
2003a.
App. Fl-11
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-17: Rainbow Smelt Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Sources: Spigarelli
NMFS, 2003a.
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
11.5
5.50
0.916
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
et al, 1981; PG&E National Energy Group,
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000990
0.00110
0.00395
0.0182
0.0460
0.0850
0.131
0.180
0.228
2001; Froese andPauly, 2003; and
Table Fl-18: Redhorse Species Life
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
2.30
2.99
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
History Parameters8
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00000370
0.0267
0.0521
0.180
0.493
0.653
0.916
2.78
3.07
a. Includes golden redhorse, shorthead redhorse, and silver redhorse.
Sources: Coriander, 1969; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Froese andPauly, 2001, 2003; and NMFS,
2003a.
APP. Fl-12
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-19: Salmonids Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable
(M) (F) to Fishery
Weight
(Ibs)
Eggs
1.90
0
0
0.0000240
Larvae
8.20
0.000171
Juvenile
0.250
0.0117
a. Includes bloater, brown trout, chinook salmon, coho salmon, lake herring, lake trout, lake whitefish,
rainbow trout, round whitefish, and other salmonids not identified to species level.
Sources: Fish, 1932; Schorftiaar andSchneeberger, 1997; Scott and Grossman, 1998; Froese and
Pauly, 2001; andNMFS, 2003a.
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.705
1.27
2.32
2.85
3.52
4.09
4.76
5.70
5.73
5.85
6.10
6.83
7.11
7.29
7.32
8.66
Table Fl-20: Shiner Species Life History Parameters8
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
4.61
0.777
0.371
4.61
4.61
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000473
0.000285
0.00209
0.00387
0.00683
0.0143
a. Includes common shiner, emerald shiner, golden shiner, spotfin shiner, spottail shiner, and other
shiners not identified to species level.
Sources: Fuchs, 1967; Wapora, 1979; Trautman, 1981; Froese and Pauly, 2003; andNMFS, 2003a..
APP. Fl-13
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-21: Spotted Sucker Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Sources: Carlander,
2003a.
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.79
2.81
3.00
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1969; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Froese
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
andPauly, 2001,
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00000198
0.0213
0.0863
0.690
1.24
1.70
1.92
1.99
2003; andNMFS,
Table Fl-22: Sucker Life History
Eg
Stage Name
;gs
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.05
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
Parameters3
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000312
Larvae
2.56
0.0000343
Juvenile
2.30
0.000239
Age 1+
0.274
0.0594
Age 2+
0.274
0.310
Age 3+
0.274
0.377
Age 4+
0.274
0.735
Age 5+
0.274
0.981
Age 6+
0.274
0
0
1.10
a. Includes carpsucker buffalo, lake chubsucker, longnose sucker, northern hog sucker, quillback, white
sucker, and other suckers not identified to species.
Sources: Carlander, 1969; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Froese andPauly, 2003; andNMFS, 2003a.
APP. Fl-14
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Table Fl-23:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.71
0.687
0.687
1.61
1.61
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
a. Includes green sunfish, orange-spotted
not identified to species.
Sources: Carlander, 1977; Wang, 1986;
Sunfish Life History Parameters"
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00000123
0.000878
0.00666
0.0271
0.0593
0.0754
0.142
0.180
0.214
0.232
sunfish, pumpkinseed, rock bass, warmouth, and other sunfish
PSE&G, 1999; Froese andPauly, 2001; andNMFS, 2003a.
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Table Fl-24:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.05
3.55
1.93
0.431
0.161
0.161
0.161
0.161
0.161
0.161
0.161
0.161
Walleye Life History
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Sources: Carlander, 1997; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Thomas and Haas, 2000;
2001, 2003; andNMFS, 2003a.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000619
0.0000768
0.0300
0.328
0.907
1.77
2.35
3.37
3.97
4.66
5.58
5.75
Froese and Pauly,
App. Fl-15
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-25: White Bass Life History Parameters
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
Name (M) (F) Fishery
1.90 0 0
4.61 0 0
1.39 0 0
0.420 0 0
0.420 0.70 0.50
0.420 0.70 1.0
0.420 0.70 1.0
0.420 0.70 1.0
0.420 0.70 1.0
0.420 0.70 1.0
Sources: Van Oosten, 1942; Geo-Marine, Inc., 1978; Carlander, 1997; Virginia
McDermot and Rose, 2000; Froese andPauly, 2001; .andNMFS, 2003a.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000396
0.00000174
0.174
0.467
0.644
1.02
1.16
1.26
1.66
1.68
Tech, 1998;
Table Fl-26: White Perch Life History Parameters
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
Name (M) (F) Fishery
2.75 0 0
5.37 0 0
1.71 0 0
0.693 0 0
0.693 0 0
0.693 0 0
0.689 0 0
1.58 0 0
1.54 0 0
1.48 0 0
1.46 0 0
1.46 0 0
1.46 0 0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000330
0.00000271
0.00259
0.0198
0.0567
0.103
0.150
0.214
0.265
0.356
0.387
0.516
0.619
Sources: Horseman andShirey, 1974; PSE&G, 1999; andNMFS, 2003a..
App. Fl-16
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-27: Yellow Perch Life History Parameters
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Stage Name (M)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Sources:,
2.75
3.56
2.53
0.361
0.249
0.844
0.844
0.844
0.844
Wapora, 1979; PSE&G, 1999;
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
Thomas and Haas,
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
2000; andNMFS, 2003 a.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000655
0.000000728
0.0232
0.0245
0.0435
0.0987
0.132
0.166
0.214
Table Fl-28: Other Recreational Species Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.08
5.71
2.85
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
a. Includes deepwater sculpin, mottled sculpin, slimy sculpin, and other sculpins not identified to
species.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbin et al, 1983; Ruppert et al, 1985; Able andFahay, 1998; PSE&G,
1999; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; ASMFC, 200Ib; andNMFS, 2003a.
App.Fl-17
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-29: Other Forage Species Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.04
7.70
1.29
1.62
1.62
1.62
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000186
0.00000158
0.000481
0.00381
0.00496
0.00505
a. Includes central mudminnow, chestnut lamprey, johnny darter, lake sturgeon, longnose gar,
ninespine stickleback, pirate perch, sea lamprey, silver lamprey, and other forage fish not identified to
species.
Sources: Derickson and Price, 1973; andPSE&G, 1999.
APP. Fl-18
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Chapter F2
Chapter F2: Evaluation of Impingement and
Entrainment in the Great Lakes Region
Chapter Contents
Background: The Great Lakes Fisheries
Great Lakes fisheries are among the most important
in the world, providing $4 billion in landings and
recreation for some 5 million recreational anglers
(Great Lakes Fishery Commission, 2003).
Historically, the top predators in the Great Lakes
included lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), sturgeon
(Acipenserfitlvescens), lake whitefish (Coregonus
clupeaformis), northern pike (Esox lucius), walleye
(Sander vitreus), and muskellunge (Esox
masquinongy). Today, as a result of numerous
stressors such as habitat destruction, damming, and
the introduction of sea lamprey and other exotic
species, dominant species are primarily non-native
salmon sustained by hatcheries. Not all introductions have been harmful, however. For example, alewife (Alosa
pseudoharengus) was introduced to provide forage for sport fish (Jude et al, 1987). Losses of alewife, emerald
shiner (Notropis atherinoides), and other forage species to impingement and entrainment (I&E) at Great Lakes
facilities are sometimes substantial. Impinged and entrained species of commercial and/or recreational importance
include yellow perch (Percaflavescens}, white bass (Morons chrysops), gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum),
and walleye (Sander vitreus).
F2-1
F2-2
F2-3
F2-4
F2-5
I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated F2-1
I&E Data Evaluated F2-3
EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III
Facilities in the Great Lakes Region
Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Yield F2-3
Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities
in the Great Lakes Region Under
Alternative Options F2-6
Assumptions Used in Calculating
Recreational and Commercial Losses F2-6
F2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated
Table F2-1 provides a list of species/species groups that were evaluated in EPA's analysis of I&E in the Great
Lakes.
Table F2-1: Species/Species Group Evaluated by EPA that are Subject to
I&E in the Great Lakes Region
Species/Species Group
Recreational Commercial Forage
Alewife
X
Black bullhead
X
Black crappie
X
Bluegill
X
Blunrnose minnow
X
Brown bullhead
X
Bullhead species
X
Burbot
X
Carp
X
Channel catfish
X
X
F2-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Chapter F2
Table F2-1: Species/Species
I&Ein
Species/Species Group
Chinook salmon
Crappie
Darter species
Emerald shiner
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
Golden redhorse
Herrings
Logperch
Muskellunge
Other (forage)
Other (recreational)
Rainbow smelt
Salmon
Sculpins
Shiner species
Smallmouth bass
Smelt
Spotted sucker
Sucker species
Sunfish
Threespine stickleback
Walleye
White bass
White perch
Whitefish
Yellow perch
Group Evaluated by EPA that are
the Great Lakes Region
Recreational Commercial
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
Subject to
Forage
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
The life history data used in EPA's analysis and associated data sources are provided in Appendix Fl of this
report.
F2-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes Chapter F2
F2-2 I&E Data Evaluated
Table F2-2 lists the facility I&E data evaluated by EPA to estimate current I&E rates for the region. See
Chapter Al of Part A for a discussion of the methods used to evaluate the I&E data. The facility studies used in
EPA's analysis are provided in the 316(b) docket.
Table F2-2: Facility I&E Data
Facilities
Bailly Generating Station
D.H. Mitchell Station
DC Cook Nuclear Power Plant
J.P. Pulliam Power Plant
J.R. Whiting Power Plant
Monroe Power Plant
Pleasant Prairie Power Plant
Port Washington Power Plant
Silver Bay Power Plant
South Oak Creek
U.S. Steel Corporation Gary Works
Evaluated for the Great
Phase
II
II
II
II
II
II
III
II
III
II
III
Lakes Region
Years of Data
1975
1975
1975-1982
1975
1978-1991
1974-1985
1980
1975-1980
1981
1975
1977
F2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Great Lakes Region
Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Yield
Table F2-3 provides EPA's estimate of the annual age-1 equivalents and foregone fishery yield resulting from the
impingement of aquatic species at facilities located in the Great Lakes region. Table F2-4 displays this
information for entrainment. Note that in these tables, "total yield" includes direct losses of harvested species and
the yield of harvested species that is lost due to losses of forage species (trophic transfer).
Table F2-3: Estimated Current Annual Impingement at Phase III
Facilities in the Great Lakes Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Alewife
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Bluegill
Bluntnose minnow
Brown bullhead
Bullhead species
Burbot
Carp
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
31,600
14,300
74
33
533
344
676
612
5,720
Total Yield
(Ibs)
<1
1,130
12
1
<1
28
55
<1
<1
F2-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes Chapter F2
Table F2-3: Estimated Current Annual Impingement at Phase III
Facilities in the Great Lakes Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Fishery Yield
Age-1 Equivalents Total Yield
Species/Species Group (#s) (Ibs)
Channel catfish 2,070 429
Chinook salmon 364 <1
Crappie 165 28
Darter species 463 <1
Emerald shiner 3,030,000 <1
Freshwater drum 43,500 10,500
Gizzard shad 16,300,000 <1
Golden redhorse 19 <1
Herrings <1 <1
Logperch 31,700 <1
Muskellunge 6 23
Other (forage) 10,400 <1
Other (recreational) 7,610 1,500
Rainbow smelt 59,400 221
Salmon 668 2,820
Sculpins 252 17
Shiner species 7,310,000 <1
Smallmouth bass 434 18
Smelts 577,000 14,300
Spotted sucker <1 <1
Sucker species 948 <1
Sunfish 14,700 11
Threespine stickleback 4,470 <1
Trophic transfer3 <1 145,000
Walleye 4,550 4,060
White bass 167,000 51,200
White perch 156,000 <1
Whitefish 30,200 27,100
Yellow perch 182,000 2,530
a Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
F2-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes Chapter F2
Table F2-4: Estimated Current Annual Entrainment at Phase III Facilities in the
Great Lakes Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Fishery Yield
Species/Species
Alewife
Black bullhead
Age-1 Equivalents Total Yield
Group (#s) (Ibs)
777
380
<1
30
Black crappie <1 <1
Bluegill
Bluntnose minnow
30
4,590
1
<1
Brown bullhead <1 <1
Bullhead species <1 <1
Burbot
Carp
Channel catfish
362
327,000
22,800
<1
<1
4,730
Chinook salmon <1 <1
Crappie
3,780
637
Darter species <1 <1
Emerald shiner
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
55,500
16,500
1,750,000
<1
3,980
<1
Golden redhorse <1 <1
Herrings
Logperch
6,540
34,800
<1
<1
Muskellunge <1 <1
Other (forage)
Other (recreational)
Rainbow smelt
Salmon
Sculpins
Shiner species
Smallmouth bass
Smelts
160,000
130
22,100
172
2,720
80,800
23,600
1,650
<1
26
82
726
182
<1
957
41
Spotted sucker <1 <1
Sucker species
Sunfish
Threespine stickleback
Trophic transfer3
Walleye
White bass
14,300
658,000
284
<1
2,510
183,000
<1
475
<1
41,100
2,240
56,000
White perch <1 <1
Whitefish
Yellow perch
3 Contribution of forage fish to
15
152,000
yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
14
2,110
F2-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes Chapter F2
F2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Great Lakes Region Under
Alternative Options
Table F2-5 presents estimated reductions in I&E under the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200 MOD
for All Waterbodies" option, and the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies" option. Reductions under all other
options are presented in Appendix F2.
Table F2-5: Estimated Reductions in I&E Under Three Alternative Options
Age-1 Equivalents Foregone Fishery Yield
Option (#s) (Ibs)
50 MGD All Option 13,300,000 160,000
200 MGD All Option 9,650,000 119,000
100 MGD Option 11,600,000 141,000
F2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating Recreational and Commercial Losses
In order to estimate the economic value of these losses, total yield was partitioned between commercial and
recreational fisheries based on the landings in each fishery. Table F2-6 presents the percentage impacts for each
species/species group. Commercial and recreational fishing benefits are presented in Chapters F3 and F4.
Table F2-6: Percentage of Total Impacts Occurring to the Commercial and
Recreational Fisheries and Commercial Value per Pound for Species Impinged and
Entrained at Great Lakes Facilities
Species/Species Group
American shad
Bigmouth buffalo
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Bluegill
Brown bullhead
Bullhead species
Channel catfish
Crabs (commercial)
Crappie
Darter species
Flounders
Freshwater drum
Menhaden species
Muskellunge
Other (commercial)
Other (recreational and commercial)
Percent Impact to
Recreational Fishery a'b
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
50.0%
Percent Impact to
Commercial Fishery a'b
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
99.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
50.0%
F2-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes Chapter F2
Table F2-6: Percentage of Total Impacts Occurring to the Commercial and
Recreational Fisheries and Commercial Value per Pound for Species Impinged and
Entrained at Great Lakes Facilities
Species/Species Group
Other (recreational)
Paddlefish
Pink shrimp
Rainbow smelt
River carpsucker
Salmon
Sauger
Sculpins
Sea basses (recreational)
Smallmouth bass
Smelts
Striped bass
Striped killifish
Sturgeon species
Sunfish
Trophic transfer0
Walleye
White bass
Whitefish
Yellow perch
Percent Impact to
Recreational Fishery a'b
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
50.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
85.0%
100.0%
100.0%
6.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
64.0%
100.0%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
Percent Impact to
Commercial Fishery a'b
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
15.0%
0.0%
0.0%
93.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
36.0%
0.0%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
a Based on opinion of local experts and comments received at proposal. EPA collected
recreational landings data by species from State fisheries experts. However, these data were
limited to a few broad species groups and were not sufficient to calculate more accurate values.
Calculated using 1993-2001 commercial landings data from NMFS (2003a,
..http://www.st.nmfs.gov/commercial/landings/annual landings.html..).
°. Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
See Chapter F3 for results of the commercial fishing benefits analysis and Chapter F4 for recreational fishing
results. As discussed in Chapter A8, benefits were discounted to account for (1) the time to achieve compliance
once a Phase III final regulation for existing facilities would have become effective, and (2) the time it takes for
fish spared from I&E to reach a harvestable age.
F2-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix F2
Appendix F2: Reductions in I&E Under
Supplemental Policy Options
Table F2-1: Estimated Reductions in I&E in the Great Lakes
Region Under Eight Supplemental Options
Option
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
Foregone Fishery Yield
(Ibs)
I-only Everywhere
I&E like Phase II
I&E Everywhere
Electric Generators 2-50 MGD
303,000 2,820
327,000 3,610
331,000 3,740
I-only Everywhere
I&E like Phase II
I&E Everywhere
Manufacturers 2-50 MGD
698,000
732,000
764,000
6,510
7,580
8,620
I-only Everywhere
I&E Everywhere
Manufacturers 50+ MGD
11,700,000 109,000
13,400,000 161,000
App. F2-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Chapter F3
Chapter F3: Commercial Fishing Benefits
Chapter Contents
F3-1
F3-2
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the commercial
fishing benefits analysis for the Great Lakes
region. The chapter presents EPA's estimates of
baseline (i.e., current) annual commercial fishery
losses from impingement and entrainment (I&E) at
potentially regulated facilities in the Great Lakes
region and annual reductions in these losses under
the regulatory options for Phase III existing
facilities.1:
» the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option,
•> the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies"
option, and
> the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies"
option.
The chapter then presents the estimated benefits to commercial fisheries from eliminating baseline losses from
I&E, and the expected benefits under the regulatory options.
Chapter A4, "Methods for Estimating Commercial Fishing Benefits," details the methods used by EPA to
estimate the commercial fishing benefits of reducing and eliminating I&E losses.
EPA considered a wide range of policy options in developing this regulation. In addition to the regulatory options,
EPA evaluated several supplemental options. Appendix F3 presents results of the commercial fishing benefits
analysis for the supplemental options. For additional information on the options, please see the TDD.
Baseline Commercial Losses F3-1
Expected Benefits Under Regulatory
Analysis Options F3-3
F3-2.1 Commercial Fishing Benefits of
the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies"
Option F3-3
F3-2.2 Commercial Fishing Benefits of
the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies"
Option F3-4
F3-2.3 Commercial Fishing Benefits of
the "100 MOD for Certain
Waterbodies" Option F3-5
F3-1 Baseline Commercial Losses
Table F3-1 provides EPA's estimate of the value of gross revenues lost in commercial fisheries resulting from the
impingement of aquatic species at facilities in the Great Lakes region. Table F3-2 displays this information for
entrainment. Total annualized revenue losses are approximately $100,153 (undiscounted).
1 See the Introduction to this report for a description of the primary analysis options.
F3-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Chapter F3
Table F3-1: Annualized Commercial Fishing Gross Revenues Lost due
to Impingement at Facilities in the Great Lakes Region
Species"
Black bullhead
Brown bullhead
Bullhead species
Channel catfish
Freshwater drum
Rainbow smelt
Sculpins
Smelts
White bass
Whitefish
Yellow perch
Trophic transfer13
Total
Estimated
Pounds of
Harvest Lost
1,132
28
55
215
10,475
110
3
13,425
25,603
13,554
1,265
52,256
118,121
Commercial
Value per
Pound
(2004$)
$0.52
$0.52
$0.52
$0.52
$0.15
$0.64
$2.68
$0.28
$0.89
$0.88
$2.23
$0.40
Estimated Value
of Harvest Lost
(2004$)
Undiscounted
$591
$15
$29
$112
$1,557
$70
$7
$3,783
$22,879
$11,928
$2,816
$21,084
$64,871
a. Species included are only those that have baseline losses greater than $1.
b Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter
Al).
Table F3-2: Annualized Commercial Fishing Gross Revenues Lost due
to Entrainment at Facilities in the Great Lakes Region
Species"
Black bullhead
Channel catfish
Freshwater drum
Rainbow smelt
Sculpins
Smelts
White bass
Whitefish
Yellow perch
Trophic transfer13
Total
Estimated
Pounds of
Harvest Lost
30
2,364
3,979
41
27
38
27,982
7
1,053
14,806
50,327
Commercial
Value per
Pound
(2004$)
$0.52
$0.52
$0.15
$0.64
$2.68
$0.28
$0.89
$0.88
$2.23
$0.40
Estimated Value
of Harvest Lost
(2004$)
Undiscounted
$16
$1,234
$592
$26
$73
$11
$25,005
$6
$2,345
$5,974
$35,282
a. Species included are only those that have baseline losses greater than $1.
b Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter
Al).
F3-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes Chapter F3
F3-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes Chapter F3
F3-2 Expected Benefits Under Regulatory Analysis Options
As described in Chapter A4, EPA estimates for Great Lakes that, depending on species, 0 to 29% of the gross
revenue losses represent surplus losses to producers, assuming no change in prices or fishing costs. Earlier EPA
analysis assumed a rate of 40%. The 0% estimate, of course, results in loss estimates of $0.
The expected reductions in I&E attributable to changes at facilities required by the "50 MGD for All
Waterbodies" option (50 MGD All option) are 42.4% for impingement and 45.3% for entrainment; the expected
reductions for the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option (200 MGD All option) are 30.4% for impingement and
36.2% for entrainment; and the expected reductions for the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option
(100 MGD CWB option) are 36.7% for impingement and 40.9% for entrainment. Total annualized benefits are
estimated by applying these estimated reductions to the annual baseline producer surplus loss. As presented in
Tables F3-3, F3-4, and F3-5, this results in total annualized benefits of up to approximately $10,610 for the
50 MGD All option, $7,873 for the 200 MGD All option, and $9,340 for the 100 MGD CWB option, assuming a
3% discount rate and a species-specific net benefits ratio..2.
F3-2.1 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table F3-3 shows EPA's analysis of the commercial benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option for the
Great Lakes region. The table shows that this option, assuming a species-specific net benefits ratio, will result in
undiscounted total annualized commercial benefits of approximately $12,612. When evaluated at 3% and
7% discount rates, the annualized commercial benefits are $10,610 and $8,516, respectively.
Table F3-3: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to
the 50 MGD All Option at Facilities in the Great Lakes Region (2004$)."
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost — 0%
$64,872
$0
$35,281
$0
$100,153
$0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $18,813 $10,231 $29,044
Expected reduction due to rule 42.4% 45.3%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $12,612
3% discount rate $10,610
7% discount rate $8,516
a. Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter II for a timeline of benefits.
.. The net benefits ratio is the fractional share of gross revenue associated with net benefits, by gear and vessel type.
See Chapter A4, section A4-10, for a description of the species-specific net benefits ratios and how they are calculated.
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes Chapter F3
F3-2.2 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table F3-4 shows EPA's analysis of the commercial benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option for
the Great Lakes region. The table shows that this option, assuming a species-specific net benefits ratio, will result
in undiscounted total annualized commercial benefits of approximately $9,410. When evaluated at 3% and
7% discount rates, the annualized commercial benefits are $7,873 and $6,275, respectively.
Table F3-4: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to
the 200 MGD All Option at Facilities in the Great Lakes Region (2004$)a
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $64,872 $35,281 $100,153
Producer surplus lost — 0% $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $18,813 $10,231 $29,044
Expected reduction due to rule 30.4% 36.2%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $9,410
3% discount rate $7,873
7% discount rate $6,275
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter II for a timeline of benefits.
F3-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes Chapter F3
F3-2.3 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
Table F3-5 shows EPA's analysis of the commercial benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option
for the Great Lakes region. The table shows that this option, assuming a species-specific net benefits ratio, will
result in undiscounted total annualized commercial benefits of approximately $11,107. When evaluated at 3% and
7% discount rates, the annualized commercial benefits are $9,340 and $7,494, respectively.
Table F3-5: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to
the 100 MGD CWB Option at Facilities in the Great Lakes Region (2004$)."
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $64,872 $35,281 $100,153
Producer surplus lost — 0% $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $18,813 $10,231 $29,044
Expected reduction due to rule 36.7% 40.9%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $11,107
3% discount rate $9,340
7% discount rate $7,494
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter II for a timeline of benefits.
F3-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes Appendix F3
Appendix F3: Commercial Fishing Benefits
Under Supplemental Policy Options
Introduction
Appendix Contents
Chapter F3 presents EPA's estimates of the
F3-1 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the
Supplemental Options F3-2
commercial benefits of the regulatory options for the
section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities in the
Great Lakes region. To facilitate comparisons among
the options, this appendix presents estimates of the
commercial fishing benefits of several supplemental options that EPA evaluated in preparation for this rule:
>• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option;
*• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option;
>• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option;
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option;
> "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option;
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option;
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere" option; and
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I&E Everywhere" option.
Commercial fishing benefits presented in this chapter were estimated using the benefit transfer approach
discussed in Chapter F3 and in Chapter A4, "Methods for Estimating Commercial Fishing Benefits." For more
information on the options, please see the TDD.
App. F3-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes Appendix F3
F3-1 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the Supplemental Options
Tables F3-1 through F3-8 present EPA's estimates of the annualized commercial benefits of the supplemental
options in the Great Lakes region.
Table F3-1: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
"Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" Option at Facilities in the
Great Lakes Region (2004$)a
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost — 0%
Impingement
$64,872
$0
Entrainment
$35,281
$0
Total
$100,153
$0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $18,813 $10,231 $29,044
Expected reduction due to rule 1% 0%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
$0
$203
$168
$132
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter II for
a timeline of benefits.
Table F3-2: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
"Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" Option at Facilities in the
Great Lakes Region (2004$)a
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $64,872 $35,281 $100,153
Producer surplus lost — 0% $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $18,813 $10,231 $29,044
Expected reduction due to rule 1% 1%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $274
3% discount rate $227
7% discount rate $179
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter II for
a timeline of benefits.
App. F3-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes Appendix F3
Table F3-3: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
"Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" Option at Facilities in the
Great Lakes Region (2004$)a
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost — 0%
Impingement
$64,872
$0
Entrainment
$35,281
$0
Total
$100,153
$0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $18,813 $10,231 $29,044
Expected reduction due to rule 1% 1%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
$0
$286
$237
$186
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter II for
a timeline of benefits.
Table F3-4: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
"Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" Option at Facilities in the
Great Lakes Region (2004$)a
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $64,872 $35,281 $100,153
Producer surplus lost — 0% $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $18,813 $10,231 $29,044
Expected reduction due to rule 2% 0%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $469
3% discount rate $402
7% discount rate $331
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter II for
a timeline of benefits.
App. F3-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes Appendix F3
Table F3-5: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
"Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" Option at Facilities in the
Great Lakes Region (2004$)a
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost — 0%
Impingement
$64,872
$0
Entrainment
$35,281
$0
Total
$100,153
$0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $18,813 $10,231 $29,044
Expected reduction due to rule 2% 1%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
$0
$566
$486
$400
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter II for
a timeline of benefits.
Table F3-6: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
"Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" Option at Facilities in the
Great Lakes Region (2004$)a
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $64,872 $35,281 $100,153
Producer surplus lost — 0% $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $18,813 $10,231 $29,044
Expected reduction due to rule 2% 2%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $660
3% discount rate $567
7% discount rate $467
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter II for
a timeline of benefits.
App. F3-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes Appendix F3
Table F3-7: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
"Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere" Option at Facilities in the
Great Lakes Region (2004$)a
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost — 0%
Impingement
$64,872
$0
Entrainment
$35,281
$0
Total
$100,153
$0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $18,813 $10,231 $29,044
Expected reduction due to rule 42% 0%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
$0
$7,882
$6,561
$5,196
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter II for
a timeline of benefits.
Table F3-8: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
"Manufacturers 50+ MGD I&E Everywhere" Option at Facilities in the
Great Lakes Region (2004$)a
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $64,872 $35,281 $100,153
Producer surplus lost — 0% $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — (gross revenue * species-specific net benefits ratio)
Undiscounted $18,813 $10,231 $29,044
Expected reduction due to rule 42% 46%
Benefits attributable to rule — 0% $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — species-specific net benefits ratio
Undiscounted $12,580
3% discount rate $10,583
7% discount rate $8,494
a. Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter II for
a timeline of benefits.
App. F3-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Chapter F4
Chapter F4: Recreational Use Benefits
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the recreational
fishing benefits analysis for the Great Lakes region.
The chapter presents EPA's estimates of baseline
(i.e., current) annual recreational fishery losses from
impingement and entrainment (I&E) at potentially
regulated facilities in the Great Lakes region and
annual reductions in these losses under the regulatory
options for Phase III existing facilities-1.:
>• the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option,
» the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option,
and
» the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies"
option.
The chapter then presents the estimated welfare gain
to Great Lakes anglers from eliminating baseline
recreational fishing losses from I&E and the
expected benefits under the regulatory options.
Chapter Contents
F4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-
Analysis F4-1
F4-1.1 Baseline Losses and Reductions in
Recreational Fishery Losses Under
the Regulatory Options F4-2
F4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits
from Eliminating Baseline I&E
Losses F4-3
F4-1.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of
the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies"
Option F4-4
F4-1.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of
the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies"
Option F4-5
F4-1.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the
"100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies"
Option F4-6
F4-2 Limitations and Uncertainty F4-7
EPA estimated the recreational benefits of reducing and eliminating I&E losses using a benefit transfer
methodology based on a meta-analysis of the marginal value of catching different species offish. This meta-
analysis is discussed in detail in Chapter A5, "Recreational Fishing Benefits Methodology."
EPA considered a wide range of policy options in developing this regulation. In addition to the regulatory options,
EPA evaluated several supplemental options. Appendix F4 presents results of the recreational fishing benefits
analysis for the supplemental options. For additional information on the options, please see the TDD.
F4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-Analysis
EPA estimated the recreational welfare gain from the reduction in annual I&E losses expected under the policy
options, and the welfare gain from eliminating I&E at potentially regulated facilities, using a benefit transfer
approach. As discussed in Chapter A5, the Agency used a meta-analysis regression equation to estimate the
marginal recreational value per additional fish caught by anglers, for different species in different regions. Since
I&E at potentially regulated facilities affects a variety of species, EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to
one of the general species groups used in the meta-analysis. The Agency then calculated the economic value of
reducing or eliminating baseline I&E losses, for each species group, by multiplying the value per fish for that
species group by the number offish in the group that are lost in the baseline or saved under the policy options..2.
1 See the Introduction to this report for a description of the primary analysis options.
2. The estimates of I&E presented in this chapter include only the fraction of impinged and entrained recreational
fish that would be caught by anglers. The total amount of I&E of recreational species is actually much higher.
F4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes Chapter F4
In general, the fit between the species with I&E losses and the species groups in the meta-analysis was good.
However, EPA's estimates of baseline I&E losses and reductions in I&E under the policy options included losses
of "unidentified" species. The "unidentified" group includes fish lost indirectly through trophic transfer, as well as
species for which no species information was available.-3- Rather than using the meta-analysis regression to try to
predict the value per fish for an "unidentified" species, EPA assumed that per-fish values for these species can be
approximated by the weighted average value per fish for all species affected by I&E in the Great Lakes region..4.
F4-1.1 Baseline Losses and Reductions in Recreational Fishery Losses Under the Regulatory Options
Table F4-1 presents EPA's estimates of baseline (i.e., current) annual recreational I&E losses at potentially
regulated facilities and annual reductions in these losses under each of the regulatory options, in the Great Lakes
region. The table shows that total baseline losses to recreational fisheries are 225.5 thousand fish per year. In
comparison, the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option prevents losses of 96.7 thousand fish per year, the
"200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option prevents losses of 72.1 thousand fish per year, and the "100 MGD for
Certain Waterbodies" option prevents losses of 85.1 thousand fish per year. Of all the affected species, white bass
and "unidentified" species have the highest losses in the baseline and the highest prevented losses under the
regulatory options.
.3. In addition to recreational fish that are lost because they are impinged or entrained, some recreational fish are lost
because the forage fish that they feed on are impinged or entrained, and thus removed from the food chain. These
trophic transfer losses of recreational species are included in EPA's estimates of total I&E losses. Since it is difficult to
predict which recreational species would be affected by losses of forage fish, these losses are classified as
"unidentified" recreational species. Also included in the "unidentified" group are losses offish that were reported by
facilities without information about their exact species.
.. EPA used the estimated level of baseline recreational losses for each species group as a weighting factor.
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Chapter F4
Table F4-1: Baseline Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III Facilities
and Reductions in Recreational Losses Under the Regulatory Options
in the Great Lakes Region
Species"
Salmon
Total (salmon)
Northern pike
Walleye
Total (walleye/pike)
Smallmouth bass
White bass
Total (bass)
Black crappie
Bluegill
Channel catfish
Crappie
Rainbow smelt
Sculpin
Smelts
Sunfish
Yellow perch
Total (panfish)
Whitefishb
Total (trout)
Total (unidentified)
Total (all species)
Baseline Annual
Recreational
Fishing Losses
(# of fish)
160.6
160.6
0.7
2,003.4
2,004.2
1,167.4
57,737.6
58,905.0
19.0
11.9
2,082.7
1,008.9
1,085.6
1,279.0
1,877.8
7,816.4
18,422.2
33,603.4
9,236.8
9,236.8
121,540.8
225,450.8
Annual Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses
(# of fish)
50 MGD All
68.2
68.2
0.3
859.2
859.5
521.1
25,030.5
25,551.6
7.9
5.1
925.8
449.7
463.0
568.5
786.8
3,488.0
7,951.5
14,646.5
3,869.9
3,869.9
51,655.7
96,651.4
200 MGD All
50.0
50.0
0.2
641.3
641.5
415.9
19,038.1
19,454.0
5.7
3.9
734.2
358.1
342.2
450.7
562.9
2,783.2
6,002.2
11,243.0
2,767.4
2,767.4
37,934.5
72,090.5
100 MGD CWB
59.7
59.7
0.3
756.8
757.1
471.6
22,214.0
22,685.6
6.9
4.6
835.8
406.6
406.2
513.1
681.6
3,156.7
7,035.3
13,046.8
3,351.7
3,351.7
45,206.6
85,107.4
a. EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to one of the species groups used in the meta-analysis. The
"unidentified" group includes fish lost indirectly through trophic transfer and fish reported lost without information
about their species.
b EPA included whitefish in the "trout" category because its physical characteristics are similar to trout, and lake
whitefish are prized for their meat. Therefore, valuing them in the panfish category would be inappropriate.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
F4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses
Table F4-2 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the welfare gain to recreational anglers from eliminating
baseline recreational fishery losses at potentially regulated facilities in the Great Lakes region. The table presents
baseline annual recreational I&E losses, the estimated value per fish, and the monetized annual welfare gain from
eliminating recreational losses, for each species group. Total baseline recreational fishing losses for the Great
Lakes region are 225.5 thousand fish per year. The undiscounted annual welfare gain to the Great Lakes anglers
from eliminating these losses is $1,180.6 thousand (2004$), with lower and upper bounds of $810.2 thousand and
$1,730.9 thousand. Evaluated at 3% and 7% discount rates, the mean annualized welfare gain of eliminating these
losses is $1,145.2 thousand and $1,102.8 thousand, respectively. The majority of monetized recreational losses
from I&E under baseline conditions are attributable to losses of species in the bass and "unidentified" species
groups.
F4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Chapter F4
Table F4-2: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E at Potentially Regulated
Phase III Facilities in the Great Lakes Region (2004$)
Species Group
Salmon
Trout
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
Baseline Annual
Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)8
0.2
9.2
2.0
58.9
33.6
121.5
225.5
225.5
225.5
Value per Fishb
Low
$8.42
$5.87
$2.12
$4.90
$0.74
$3.59
Mean
$11.17
$7.94
$3.46
$7.21
$1.12
$5.24
High
$14.83
$10.79
$5.69
$10.64
$1.72
$7.68
Annualized Benefits from
Eliminating Recreational Fishing
Losses (thousands)c'd
Low
$1.4
$54.2
$4.3
$288.8
$24.8
$436.8
$810.2
$785.9
$756.8
Mean
$1.8
$73.4
$6.9
$424.5
$37.5
$636.5
$1,180.6
$1,145.2
$1,102.8
High
$2.4
$99.7
$11.4
$626.5
$57.8
$933.1
$1,730.9
$1,678.9
$1,616.7
a. Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have been caught by
recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
°. Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying baseline losses by the estimated value per fish.
d Annualized values represent the total welfare gain over the time frame of the analysis from eliminating recreational
losses, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
and annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
F4-1.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table F4-3 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies"
option for the Great Lakes region. The table presents the annual reduction in recreational I&E losses expected
under this option, the estimated value per fish, and annual monetized recreational welfare gain from this option,
by species group. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 96.7 thousand fish per year,
resulting in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $505.5 thousand (2004$), with lower and
upper bounds of $346.8 thousand and $741.2 thousand. Evaluated at 3% and 7% discount rates, the mean
annualized welfare gain from this reduction in recreational losses is $425.3 thousand and $341.3 thousand,
respectively. The majority of benefits result from reduced losses of species in the bass and "unidentified" species
groups.
F4-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Chapter F4
Table F4-3: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
in the Great Lakes Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fishb
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)'
c,d
Species Group
Salmon
Trout
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)8
0.1
3.9
0.9
25.6
14.6
51.7
96.7
96.7
96.7
Low
$8.42
$5.87
$2.12
$4.90
$0.74
$3.59
Mean
$11.17
$7.94
$3.46
$7.21
$1.12
$5.24
High
$14.83
$10.79
$5.69
$10.64
$1.72
$7.68
Low
$0.6
$22.7
$1.8
$125.3
$10.8
$185.6
$346.8
$291.8
$234.2
Mean
$0.8
$30.7
$3.0
$184.1
$16.4
$270.5
$505.5
$425.3
$341.3
High
$1.0
$41.8
$4.9
$271.8
$25.2
$396.6
$741.2
$623.5
$500.5
a. Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have been caught by
recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
°. Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual reduction in recreational losses by the estimated value
per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
F4-1.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table F4-4 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational benefits of the "200 MGD for All
Waterbodies" option for the Great Lakes region. The table presents the annual reduction in recreational I&E
losses expected under this option, the estimated value per fish, and annual monetized recreational welfare gain
from this option, by species group. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 72.1 thousand
fish per year, resulting in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $376.2 thousand (2004$), with
lower and upper bounds of $258.0 thousand and $551.7 thousand. Evaluated at 3% and 7% discount rates, the
mean annualized welfare gain from this reduction in recreational losses is $314.7 thousand and $250.8 thousand,
respectively. The majority of benefits result from reduced losses of species in the bass and "unidentified" species
groups.
F4-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Chapter F4
Table F4-4: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
in the Great Lakes Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish1
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)'
c,d
Species Group
Salmon
Trout
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)3
0.1
2.8
0.6
19.5
11.2
37.9
72.1
72.1
72.1
Low
$8.42
$5.87
$2.12
$4.90
$0.74
$3.59
Mean
$11.17
$7.94
$3.46
$7.21
$1.12
$5.24
High
$14.83
$10.79
$5.69
$10.64
$1.72
$7.68
Low
$0.4
$16.2
$1.4
$95.4
$8.3
$136.3
$258.0
$215.9
$172.1
Mean
$0.6
$22.0
$2.2
$140.2
$12.6
$198.7
$376.2
$314.7
$250.8
High
$0.7
$29.9
$3.7
$206.9
$19.3
$291.2
$551.7
$461.6
$367.9
a. Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have been caught by
recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
°. Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual reduction in recreational losses by the estimated value
per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
F4-1.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
Table F4-5 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain
Waterbodies" option for the Great Lakes region. The table presents the annual reduction in recreational I&E
losses expected under this option, the estimated value per fish, and annual monetized recreational welfare gain
from this option, by species group. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 85.1 thousand
fish per year, resulting in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $444.7 thousand (2004$), with
lower and upper bounds of $305.1 thousand and $652.1 thousand. Evaluated at 3% and 7% discount rates, the
mean annualized welfare gain from this reduction in recreational losses is $374.0 thousand and $300.0 thousand,
respectively. The majority of benefits result from reduced losses of species in the bass and "unidentified" species
groups.
F4-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Chapter F4
Table F4-5: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option in the Great
Lakes Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fishb
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)'
c,d
Species Group
Salmon
Trout
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)8
0.1
3.4
0.8
22.7
13.0
45.2
85.1
85.1
85.1
Low
$8.42
$5.87
$2.12
$4.90
$0.74
$3.59
Mean
$11.17
$7.94
$3.46
$7.21
$1.12
$5.24
High
$14.83
$10.79
$5.69
$10.64
$1.72
$7.68
Low
$0.5
$19.7
$1.6
$111.2
$9.6
$162.5
$305.1
$256.6
$205.8
Mean
$0.7
$26.6
$2.6
$163.5
$14.6
$236.7
$444.7
$374.0
$300.0
High
$0.9
$36.2
$4.3
$241.3
$22.4
$347.1
$652.1
$548.4
$440.0
a. Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have been caught by
recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
°. Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual reduction in recreational losses by the estimated value
per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
F4-2 Limitations and Uncertainty
The results of the benefit transfer based on a meta-analysis represent EPA's best estimate of the recreational
benefits of the regulatory options. Nonetheless, there are a number of limitations and uncertainties inherent in
these estimates. General limitations pertaining to the development of the meta-analysis model, the use of the
model to estimate per-fish values, and the validity of the benefit transfer are discussed in section A5-3.3e and
section A5-5.3 of Chapter A5. In addition to these general concerns about the analysis, there are some limitations
and uncertainties that are specific to the Great Lakes region.
The main limitation of using the meta-analysis to calculate recreational benefits for the Great Lakes region is that
EPA was unable to locate any studies that evaluated WTP for some Great Lakes species such as rainbow smelt
and sculpin. However, the Agency believes that the per-fish values for these species can be approximated by the
per-fish values for panfish.
F4-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix F4
Appendix F4: Recreational Use Benefits
Under Supplemental Policy Options
Appendix Contents
F4-1
F4-2
Recreational Fishing Benefits of the
Supplemental Options F4-1
F4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in
Recreational Fishing Losses
Under the Supplemental Options....F4-1
F4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits of
the Supplemental Options F4-3
Comparison of Recreational Fishing
Benefits by Option F4-11
Introduction
Chapter F4 presents EPA's estimates of the
recreational benefits of the regulatory options for the
section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities in the
Great Lakes region. To facilitate comparisons among
the options, this appendix presents estimates of the
recreational fishing benefits of several supplemental
options that EPA evaluated in preparation for this
rule:
> "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I-only
Everywhere" option;
> "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option;
*• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option;
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option;
•> "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option;
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option;
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere" option; and
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I&E Everywhere" option.
Recreational fishing benefits presented in this chapter were estimated using the benefit transfer approach
discussed in Chapter F4 and in Chapter A5, "Recreational Fishing Benefits Methodology." For additional
information on the options, please see the TDD.
F4-1 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Supplemental Options
F4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses Under the Supplemental Options
Table F4-1 presents EPA's estimates of the annual reduction in baseline (i.e., current) recreational fishing losses
from impingement and entrainment (I&E) in the Great Lakes region under the supplemental options.
App. F4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix F4
Table F4-1: Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E
Under the Supplemental Options in the Great Lakes Region
Annual Reduction in Recreational Losses
(# of fish)
Electric Generators 2-50 MGD
Species"
Salmon
Total (salmon)
Northern pike
Walleye
Total (walleye/pike)
Smallmouth bass
White bass
Total (bass)
Black crappie
Bluegill
Channel catfish
Crappie
Rainbow smelt
Sculpin
Smelts
Sunfish
Yellow perch
Total (panfish)
Whitefish
Total (trout)b
Total (unidentified)
Total (all species)
Manufacturers 2-50 MGD
I-only I&E like I&E I-only
Everywhere Phase II Everywhere Everywhere
1.4
1.4
0.0.c
14.0
14.0
0.2
298.2
298.5
0.2
0.1
1.9
0.5
8.6
1.2
20.2
1.8
108.7
143.1
99.8
99.8
1,028.8
1,585.5
1.6
1.6
0.0.c
18.9
18.9
8.2
507.4
515.6
0.2
0.1
15.1
7.2
10.6
9.3
20.3
54.9
166.7
284.4
99.8
99.8
1,211.7
2,132.0
1.6
1.6
0.0.c
19.7
19.7
9.5
542.7
552.2
0.2
0.1
17.4
8.3
10.9
10.7
20.3
63.8
176.5
308.2
99.8
99.8
1,242.7
2,224.4
3.2
3.2
0.0.c
32.2
32.2
0.5
687.3
687.8
0.5
0.2
4.3
1.1
19.7
2.7
46.6
4.2
250.5
329.8
230.0
230.0
2,370.6
3,653.5
I&E like
Phase II
3.5
3.5
0.0.c
38.9
39.0
11.4
974.3
985.8
0.5
0.2
22.5
10.3
22.5
13.8
46.7
77.0
330.1
523.7
230.0
230.0
2,621.8
4,403.8
Manufacturers 50+ MGD
I&E I-only
Everywhere Everywhere
3.8
3.8
0.0.c
45.5
45.5
21.9
1,250.6
1,272.5
0.5
0.3
40.0
19.1
25.2
24.6
46.7
147.1
406.8
710.3
230.1
230.1
2,863.5
5,125.8
a. EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to one of the species groups used in the meta-analysis. The "unidentified" group
trophic transfer and fish reported lost without information about their species.
b EPA included whitefish in the "trout" category because its physical characteristics are similar to trout, and lake whitefish are
valuing them in the panfish category would be inappropriate.
°. Denotes a non-zero value less than 0.5 fish.
53.5
53.5
0.3
541.0
541.3
8.8
11,557.6
11,566.5
7.9
2.6
72.6
17.7
331.6
45.5
784.5
71.4
4,211.8
5,545.6
3,867.8
3,867.8
39,866.7
61,441.4
I&E
Everywhere
68.6
68.6
0.3
868.0
868.3
535.2
25,401.6
25,936.8
7.9
5.2
949.3
461.6
466.6
582.9
786.9
3,582.2
8,054.5
14,897.2
3,869.9
3,869.9
51,980.5
97,621.2
includes fish lost indirectly through
prized for their meat. Therefore,
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. F4-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix F4
F4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Supplemental Options
Tables F4-2 through F4-9 present EPA's estimates of the annualized recreational benefits of the supplemental
options in the Great Lakes region.
Table F4-2: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere"
Option in the Great Lakes Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Species Group
Salmon
Trout
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)
0.0d
0.1
o.od
0.3
0.1
1.0
1.6
1.6
1.6
Low
$8.42
$5.87
$2.12
$4.90
$0.74
$3.59
Mean
$11.17
$7.94
$3.46
$7.21
$1.12
$5.24
High
$14.83
$10.79
$5.69
$10.64
$1.72
$7.68
Low
0.0e
$0.6
0.0e
$1.5
$0.1
$3.7
$5.9
$4.9
$3.8
Mean
0.0e
$0.8
0.0e
$2.2
$0.2
$5.4
$8.6
$7.1
$5.6
High
0.0e
$1.1
$0.1
$3.2
$0.2
$7.9
$12.5
$10.3
$8.1
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d Denotes a non-zero value less than 50 fish.
e Denotes a non-zero value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. F4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix F4
Table F4-3: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase IF
Option in the Great Lakes Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Species Group
Salmon
Trout
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)
0.0d
0.1
o.od
0.5
0.3
1.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
Low
$8.42
$5.87
$2.12
$4.90
$0.74
$3.59
Mean
$11.17
$7.94
$3.46
$7.21
$1.12
$5.24
High
$14.83
$10.79
$5.69
$10.64
$1.72
$7.68
Low
0.0e
$0.6
0.0e
$2.5
$0.2
$4.4
$7.7
$6.4
$5.0
Mean
0.0e
$0.8
$0.1
$3.7
$0.3
$6.3
$11.3
$9.3
$7.3
High
0.0e
$1.1
$0.1
$5.5
$0.5
$9.3
$16.5
$13.6
$10.7
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d Denotes a non-zero value less than 50 fish.
e Denotes a non-zero value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. F4-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix F4
Table F4-4: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere'
Option in the Great Lakes Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Species Group
Salmon
Trout
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)
0.0d
0.1
o.od
0.6
0.3
1.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
Low
$8.42
$5.87
$2.12
$4.90
$0.74
$3.59
Mean
$11.17
$7.94
$3.46
$7.21
$1.12
$5.24
High
$14.83
$10.79
$5.69
$10.64
$1.72
$7.68
Low
0.0e
$0.6
0.0e
$2.7
$0.2
$4.5
$8.0
$6.7
$5.2
Mean
0.0e
$0.8
$0.1
$4.0
$0.3
$6.5
$11.7
$9.7
$7.6
High
0.0e
$1.1
$0.1
$5.9
$0.5
$9.5
$17.2
$14.2
$11.2
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d Denotes a non-zero value less than 50 fish.
e Denotes a non-zero value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. F4-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix F4
Table F4-5: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere"
Option in the Great Lakes Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Species Group
Salmon
Trout
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)
0.0d
0.2
0.0d
0.7
0.3
2.4
3.7
3.7
3.7
Low
$8.42
$5.87
$2.12
$4.90
$0.74
$3.59
Mean
$11.17
$7.94
$3.46
$7.21
$1.12
$5.24
High
$14.83
$10.79
$5.69
$10.64
$1.72
$7.68
Low
0.0e
$1.3
$0.1
$3.4
$0.2
$8.5
$13.6
$11.7
$9.6
Mean
0.0e
$1.8
$0.1
$5.0
$0.4
$12.4
$19.7
$16.9
$13.9
High
0.0e
$2.5
$0.2
$7.3
$0.6
$18.2
$28.8
$24.7
$20.4
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d Denotes a non-zero value less than 50 fish.
e Denotes a non-zero value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. F4-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix F4
Table F4-6: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II"
Option in the Great Lakes Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Species Group
Salmon
Trout
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)
0.0d
0.2
0.0d
1.0
0.5
2.6
4.4
4.4
4.4
Low
$8.42
$5.87
$2.12
$4.90
$0.74
$3.59
Mean
$11.17
$7.94
$3.46
$7.21
$1.12
$5.24
High
$14.83
$10.79
$5.69
$10.64
$1.72
$7.68
Low
0.0e
$1.4
$0.1
$4.8
$0.4
$9.4
$16.1
$13.8
$11.4
Mean
0.0e
$1.8
$0.1
$7.1
$0.6
$13.7
$23.4
$20.1
$16.6
High
$0.1
$2.5
$0.2
$10.5
$0.9
$20.1
$34.3
$29.4
$24.2
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d Denotes a non-zero value less than 50 fish.
e Denotes a non-zero value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. F4-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix F4
Table F4-7: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere"
Option in the Great Lakes Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Species Group
Salmon
Trout
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)
0.0d
0.2
0.0d
1.3
0.7
2.9
5.1
5.1
5.1
Low
$8.42
$5.87
$2.12
$4.90
$0.74
$3.59
Mean
$11.17
$7.94
$3.46
$7.21
$1.12
$5.24
High
$14.83
$10.79
$5.69
$10.64
$1.72
$7.68
Low
0.0e
$1.4
$0.1
$6.2
$0.5
$10.3
$18.5
$15.9
$13.1
Mean
0.0e
$1.8
$0.2
$9.2
$0.8
$15.0
$27.0
$23.2
$19.1
High
$0.1
$2.5
$0.3
$13.5
$1.2
$22.0
$39.5
$33.9
$28.0
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d Denotes a non-zero value less than 50 fish.
e Denotes a non-zero value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. F4-8
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix F4
Table F4-8: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere'
Option in the Great Lakes Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Species Group
Salmon
Trout
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)
0.1
3.9
0.5
11.6
5.5
39.9
61.4
61.4
61.4
Low
$8.42
$5.87
$2.12
$4.90
$0.74
$3.59
Mean
$11.17
$7.94
$3.46
$7.21
$1.12
$5.24
High
$14.83
$10.79
$5.69
$10.64
$1.72
$7.68
Low
$0.5
$22.7
$1.1
$56.7
$4.1
$143.3
$228.4
$190.1
$150.6
Mean
$0.6
$30.7
$1.9
$83.4
$6.2
$208.8
$331.5
$276.0
$218.6
High
$0.8
$41.7
$3.1
$123.0
$9.5
$306.1
$484.2
$403.1
$319.2
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. F4-9
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix F4
Table F4-9: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I&E Everywhere"
Option in the Great Lakes Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Species Group
Salmon
Trout
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)
0.1
3.9
0.9
25.9
14.9
52.0
97.6
97.6
97.6
Low
$8.42
$5.87
$2.12
$4.90
$0.74
$3.59
Mean
$11.17
$7.94
$3.46
$7.21
$1.12
$5.24
High
$14.83
$10.79
$5.69
$10.64
$1.72
$7.68
Low
$0.6
$22.7
$1.8
$127.2
$11.0
$186.8
$350.1
$294.5
$236.4
Mean
$0.8
$30.7
$3.0
$186.9
$16.6
$272.2
$510.3
$429.3
$344.6
High
$1.0
$41.8
$4.9
$275.9
$25.6
$399.1
$748.3
$629.5
$505.3
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
APP. F4-10
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Appendix F4
F4-2 Comparison of Recreational Fishing Benefits by Option
Table F4-10 compares the recreational fishing benefits of the eight supplemental options.
Table F4-10: Annual Recreational Benefits of the Supplemental Options in the Great Lakes Region
Policy Option
Annual Reduction
in Recreational Fishing
Losses from I&E
(thousands of fish)
Undiscounted Recreational Fishing Benefits
(thousands; 2004$)a
Low
Mean
High
Electric Generators 2-50 MGD
I -only Everywhere
I&E like Phase II
I&E Everywhere
1.6
2.1
2.2
$5.9
$7.7
$8.0
$8.6
$11.3
$11.7
$12.5
$16.5
$17.2
Manufacturers 2-50 MGD
I -only Everywhere
I&E like Phase II
I&E Everywhere
3.7
4.4
5.1
$13.6
$16.1
$18.5
$19.7
$23.4
$27.0
$28.8
$34.3
$39.5
Manufacturers 50+ MGD
I -only Everywhere
I&E Everywhere
a. These benefit estimates were calculated using
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
61.4
97.6
the meta-analysis
$228.4
$350.1
approach discussed
$331.5
$510.3
in Chapter A5
$484.2
$748.3
and Chapter B4.
App. F4-11
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Chapter F5
Chapter F5: Federally Listed T&E Species in
the Great Lakes Region
This chapter lists current federally listed threatened and endangered (T&E) fish and shellfish species in the Great
Lakes Region. This list does not address proposed or candidate species; In addition, fish and shellfish listed as
cave species, marine mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and snails are not included in this chapter.
Table F5-1: Illinois Federally
Status Scientific Name
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Source:
Epioblasma torulosa torulosa
Epioblasma obliquata obliquata
Quadmla fragosa
Hemistena lota
Epioblasma torulosa rangiana
Obovaria retusa
Plethobasus cicatricosus
Leptodea leptodon
Cyprogenia stegaria ( = C. irrorata)
Lampsilis higginsii
Lampsilis orbiculata ( = L. abrupta)
Plethobasus cooperianus ( = P. striatus)
Pleurobema clava
Potamilus capax
Scaphirhynchus albus
USFWS, 2006a.
Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Tubercled-blossom pearlymussel: entire range, except
where listed as experimental populations
Purple catspaw pearlymussel ( = catspaw): entire range,
except where listed as experimental populations
Winged mapleleaf mussel: entire range, except where
listed as experimental populations
Cracking pearlymussel: entire range, except where listed
as experimental populations
Northern riffleshell mussel
Ring pink mussel
White wartyback pearlymussel
Scaleshell mussel
Fanshell mussel
Higgins eye pearlymussel
Pink mucket pearlymussel
Orange-footed pimpleback pearlymussel
Clubshell mussel: entire range, except where listed as
experimental populations
Fat pocketbook mussel
Pallid sturgeon
F5-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Chapter F5
Table F5-2: Indiana Federally
Status Scientific Name
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Source:
Cyprogenia stegaria ( = C. irrorata)
Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua
Epioblasma tomlosa rangiana
Pleurobema clava
Pleurobema plenum
Epioblasma obliquata obliquata
Quadrula fragosa
Lampsilis orbiculata ( = L. abrupta)
Leptodea leptodon
Hemistena lata
Plethobasus cooperianus ( = P. striatus)
Obovaria retusa
Plethobasus cicatricosus
Potamilus capax
USFWS, 2006a.
Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Fanshell mussel
White catspaw pearlymussel
Northern riffleshell mussel
Clubshell mussel: entire range, except where listed as
experimental populations
Rough pigtoe mussel
Purple catspaw pearlymussel ( = catspaw): entire range,
except where listed as experimental populations
Winged mapleleaf mussel: entire range, except where
listed as experimental populations
Pink mucket pearlymussel
Scaleshell mussel
Cracking pearlymussel: entire range, except where listed
as experimental populations
Orange-footed pimpleback pearlymussel
Ring pink mussel
White wartyback pearlymussel
Fat pocketbook mussel
Table F5-3: Maine Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
Acipenser brevirostrum
Shortnose sturgeon
Salmo salar
Atlantic salmon (Gulf of Maine Atlantic salmon DPS)
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Table F5-4: Michigan Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
Epioblasma torulosa rangiana
Northern riffleshell mussel
Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua
White catspaw pearlymussel
Pleurobema clava
Clubshell mussel: entire range, except where listed as
experimental populations
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
F5-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Chapter F5
Table F5-5: Minnesota Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
Leptodea leptodon
Scaleshell mussel
Lampsilis higginsii
Higgins eye pearlymussel
Notropis topeka
Topeka shiner
Quadmla fragosa
Winged mapleleaf mussel
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Table F5-6: New Hampshire Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
Alasmidonta heterodon
Dwarf wedgemussel
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Table F5-7: New York Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Alasmidonta heterodon
Dwarf wedgemussel
Acipenser brevirostrum
Shortnose sturgeon
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Status
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Table F5-8: Ohio Federally
Scientific Name
Cyprogenia stegaria ( = C. irrorata)
Epioblasma obliquata obliquata
Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua
Epioblasma torulosa rangiana
Lampsilis orbiculata ( = L. abrupta)
Noturus trautmani
Quadrula fragosa
Leptodea leptodon
Hemistena lata
Plethobasus cooperianus ( = P. striatus)
Potamilus capax
Obovaria retusa
Pleurobema clava
Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Fanshell mussel
Purple catspaw pearlymussel
White catspaw pearlymussel
Northern riffleshell mussel
Pink mucket pearlymussel
Scioto madtom
Winged mapleleaf mussel: entire range except where
listed as experimental populations
Scaleshell mussel: entire range except where listed
experimental populations
Cracking pearlymussel: entire range, except where
as experimental populations
Orange-footed pimpleback pearlymussel
Fat pocketbook mussel
Ring pink mussel
Clubshell mussel
as
listed
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
F5-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: The Great Lakes
Chapter F5
Table F5-9: Pennsylvania
Status Scientific Name
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Source:
Pleurobema clava
Cyprogenia stegaria
Lampsilis abrupta
Pleurobema plenum
Plethobasus cooperianus
Epioblasma torulosa rangiana
Obovaria retusa
Alasmidonta heterodon
USFWS, 2006a.
Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Clubshell mussel: entire range except where listed as
experimental populations
Fanshell mussel
Pink mucket pearlymussel
Rough pigtoe pearlymussel
Orange-foot pimpleback pearlymussel
Northern riffleshell mussel
Ring pink mussel
Dwarf wedgemussel
Table F5-10: Vermont Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
Alasmidonta heterodon
Dwarf wedgemussel
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Status
E
E
E
Table F5-11: Wisconsin
Scientific Name
Lampsilis higginsii
Leptodea leptodon
Quadrula fragosa
Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Higgins eye pearlymussel
Scaleshell mussel
Winged mapleleaf mussel
Sources: USFWS, 2006a,b.
F5-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment
Part G: The Inland Region
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region Chapter Gl
Chapter Gl: Background
Gl-l Facility Characteristics Gl-1
Introduction
Chapter Contents
This chapter presents an overview of the potential
Phase III existing facilities in the Inland study region
and summarizes their key cooling water and
compliance characteristics. For further discussion of
the technical and compliance characteristics of potential Phase III existing facilities, refer to the Economic
Analysis for the Final Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities and the Technical Development Document for
the Final Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2006a,c).
Gl-1 Facility Characteristics
The Inland Regional Study includes 274 sample facilities that are potentially subject to the national standards for
Phase III existing facilities. Figure Gl-1 presents a map of these facilities. One hundred and seventy-two facilities
are manufacturing facilities and 102 are electric generators. Industry-wide, these 274 sample facilities represent
541 facilities..1.
1 EPA applied sample weights to the survey respondents to account for non-sampled facilities and facilities that did
not respond to the survey. For more information on EPA's 2000 Section 316(b) Industry Survey, please refer to the
Information Collection Request (U.S. EPA, 2000b).
Gl-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter Gl
Figure Gl-1: Potential Existing Phase III Facilities in the Inland Regional Study"
Potential Phase III Existing Facilities (Count)
o Electric Generating Facility (1 02) [ I Inland Region with Counties
• Manufacturing Facility (172)
a. The map includes locations of sample facilities only.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Gl-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter Gl
Table Gl-1 summarizes key technical and compliance characteristics for all potentially regulated Phase III
existing facilities in the Inland study region for the regulatory options considered by EPA for this rule (the
"50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, and the "100 MOD for
Certain Waterbodies" option). Facilities with a design intake flow below the three applicability thresholds would
be subject to permitting based on best professional judgment and are excluded from EPA's analyses.2 Therefore,
a different number of facilities is affected under each option.
Table Gl-1 shows that 541 Phase III existing facilities in the Inland study region would potentially be subject to
the national requirements. Under the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the most inclusive of the regulatory
options, 107 facilities would be subject to the national requirements for Phase III existing facilities. Under the less
inclusive "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, 16 facilities would be subject to the national requirements, and
under the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies" option, no facilities would be subject to the national requirements.
One hundred and seventy-eight facilities in the Inland study region have a recirculating system in the baseline.
Table Gl-1: Technical and Compliance Characteristics of Existing Phase III Facilities (sample-weighted)
Total Number of Facilities (sample-weighted)8
Number of Facilities with Recirculating System in Baseline
Design Intake Flow (MGD)
Number of Facilities by Compliance Response
Fish H&R
Velocity cap
Fine mesh traveling screens with fish H&R
Double-entry, single-exit with fine mesh, and fish H&R
Passive fine mesh screens
None
Compliance Cost, Discounted at 3%b
Compliance Cost, Discounted at 7%b
All
Potentially
Regulated
Facilities
541
178
17,704
58
9
13
3
10
448
$35.42
$35.86
Regulatory
Options
50 MGD 200 MGD 100 MGD
All All CWB
107
5
13,276
50
8
12
3
5
30
$17.49
$18.28
16
1
8,732
4
-
4
2
3
3
$10.11
$11.25
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$0.00
$0.00
a. Total may not equal compliance response subtotals due to rounding.
Annualized pre-tax compliance cost (2004$, millions).
Sources: U.S. EPA, 2000b; U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Also excluded are facilities that are estimated to be baseline closures. For additional information on EPA's
baseline closure analyses, please refer to the Economic Analysis for the Final Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III
Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2006a).
Gl-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Appendix Gl: Life History Parameter
Values Used to Evaluate I&E in the
Inland Region
The tables in this appendix summarize the life history parameter values used by EPA to calculate age-1
equivalents and fishery yield from impingement and entrainment (I&E) data for the Inland region.
Table Gl-1: Alewife Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Sources: Spigarelli
NMFS, 2003a.
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
11.5
5.50
6.21
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
et al, 1981; PG&E National Energy Group,
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0 0.
0 0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001; Froese andPauly,
Weight
(Ib)
00000128
00000141
0.00478
0.0160
0.0505
0.0764
0.0941
0.108
0.130
0.149
2003; and
App. Gl-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-2: American Shad Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.496
0.496
2.52
7.40
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.540
1.02
1.50
1.50
1.50
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Able and Fahay,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
1998; PSE&G, 1999;
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.45
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
andFroese andPauly,
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.000000728
0.00000335
0.000746
0.309
1.17
2.32
3.51
4.56
5.47
6.20
6.77
2001.
Table
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Gl-3: Bass Species (Micropterus spp.) Life History Parameters"
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
2.70
0.446
0.860
1.17
0.755
1.05
0.867
0.867
0.867
0.867
0.867
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.32
0.21
0.29
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000731
0.0000198
0.0169
0.202
0.518
0.733
1.04
1.44
2.24
2.56
2.92
3.30
a. Includes largemouth bass, red bass, smallmouth bass, spotted bass, and other sunfish not identified to
species.
Sources: Scott and Grossman, 1973; Carlander, 1977; Wang, 1986; Bartell and Campbell, 2000;
Froese andPauly, 2001; andNMFS, 2003a.
App. Gl-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-4: Black Bullhead Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile+
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
4.61
1.39
0.446
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000312
0.000186
0.00132
0.0362
0.0797
0.137
0.233
0.402
0.679
0.753
0.815
0.823
Sources: Carlander, 1969; Scott and Grossman, 1973; Geo-Marine, Inc., 1978; Froese andPauly,
2001; .andNMFS, 2003a.
Table Gl-5: Black Crappie Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.80
0.498
2.93
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000929
0.00000857
0.0120
0.128
0.193
0.427
0.651
0.888
0.925
0.972
1.08
1.26
Sources: Carlander, 1977; Wang, 1986; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Froese andPauly, 2001;
andNMFS, 2003a.
APP. Gl-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Table Gl-6: Blueback Herring Life
History Parameters8
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable
(M) (F) to Fishery
0.558 0
3.18 0
6.26 0
0.300 0
0.300 0
0.300 0
0.900 0
1.50 0
1.50 0
1.50 0
1.50 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ib)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0160
0.0905
0.204
0.318
0.414
0.488
0.540
0.576
a. Includes blueback herring and other herrings not identified to the species.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Able andFahay, 1998; PSE&G, 1999; Froese andPauly, 2001; andNMFS,
2003a.
Table Gl-7: Bluegill Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.73
0.576
4.62
0.390
0.151
0.735
0.735
0.735
0.735
0.735
0.735
0.735
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000130
0.00000156
0.00795
0.00992
0.0320
0.0594
0.104
0.189
0.193
0.209
0.352
0.393
Sources: Coriander, 1977; Wang, 1986; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Froese andPauly, 2001; and
NMFS, 2003a.
App. Gl-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-8: Brown Bullhead Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
4.61
1.39
0.446
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
Fraction
Vulnerable
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
a. Includes brown bullhead, stonecat, yellow bullhead, and other bullheads not
Sources: Coriander, 1969; Geo-Marine, Inc., 1978; Froese andPauly, 2001;
to Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.0000192
0.00246
0.0898
0.172
0.278
0.330
0.570
0.582
identified to the species.
andNMFS, 200 3 a.
App. Gl-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Table Gl-9:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
4.61
1.39
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
Carp Life History Parameters8
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000673
0.0000118
0.0225
0.790
1.21
1.81
5.13
5.52
5.82
6.76
8.17
8.55
8.94
9.76
10.2
10.6
11.1
11.5
12.0
12.5
a. Includes carp, goldfish, and other minnows not identified to species.
Sources: Coriander, 1969; Geo-Marine, Inc., 1978; Wang, 1986; Froese andPauly, 2001; andNMFS,
2003a.
APP. Gl-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-10: Carp/Minnow Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
2.06
2.06
1.00
1.00
1.00
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.000375
0.00208
0.00585
0.0121
0.0171
a. Includes bluntnose minnow, central stoneroller, creek chub, fathead minnow, silver chub, silverjaw
minnow, and other minnows not identified to species.
Sources: Carlander, 1969; Froese andPauly, 2001; NMFS, 2003 a; and Ohio Department of Natural
Resources, 2003.
Table Gl-11: Crappie Species Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.80
0.498
2.93
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000929
0.00000857
0.0120
0.128
0.193
0.427
0.651
0.888
0.925
0.972
1.08
1.26
a. Includes white crappie and other crappies not identified to the species.
Sources: Carlander, 1977; Wang, 1986; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Froese andPauly, 2001; and
NMFS, 2003a.
App. Gl-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-12: Darter Species Life History Parameters3
Eg
Stage Name
;gs
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000619
Larvae
1.95
0.0000497
Juvenile
1.95
0.000490
Age 1+
0.700
0.00161
Age 2+
0.700
0.00321
Age 3+
0.700
0
0
0.00496
a. Includes fantail darter, river darter, tessallated darter, and other darters not identified to species.
Sources: Coriander, 1997; Froese andPauly, 2001, 2003; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table Gl-13: Freshwater Catfish Life
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
4.61
1.39
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
History Parameters"
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000539
0.0000563
0.0204
0.104
0.330
0.728
1.15
1.92
2.41
3.45
4.01
5.06
8.08
8.39
8.53
a. Includes blue catfish, channel catfish, flathead catfish, white catfish, and other catfish not identified
to the species.
Sources: Miller, 1966; Coriander, 1969; Geo-Marine, Inc., 1978; Wang, 1986; Sailaetal., 1997;
Froese andPauly, 2001; andNMFS, 2003a..
App. Gl-8
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-14: Freshwater Drum Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
(M) (F)
2.27
6.13
2.30
0.310
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0
0
0
0
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
a. Includes freshwater drum and other drum not identified in species.
Sources: Scott and Grossman, 1973; Virginia Tech, 1998; Bartell and Campbell, 2000
Pauly, 2001; andNMFS, 2003 a.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00000295
0.0166
0.0500
0.206
0.438
0.638
0.794
0.950
1.09
1.26
1.44
1.60
1.78
2.00
; Froese and
Table Gl-15: Gizzard Shad Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
a. Includes gizzard
Sources: Wapora,
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
(M) (F)
1.90
6.33
0.511
1.45
1.27
0.966
0.873
0.303
0.303
shad, threadfin shad, and
1979; Froese and Pauly,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000487
0.00000663
0.0107
0.141
0.477
0.640
0.885
1.17
1.54
other shad not identified to species.
2003; andNMFS, 2003a.
App. Gl-9
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-16: Killifish Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
3.00
0.916
0.777
0.777
0.777
0.777
0.777
0.777
0.777
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parameters3
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000180
0.0000182
0.000157
0.0121
0.0327
0.0551
0.0778
0.0967
0.113
0.158
a. Includes eastern banded killifish.
Sources: Coriander, 1969; Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977; Meredith andLotrich,
1979; Able andFahay, 1998; andNMFS, 2003a,
Table Gl-17: Logperch Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
Stage Name (M) (F)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Sources:
1.90
1.90
1.90
0.700
0.700
0.700
Car lander, 1997; Froese and Pauly,
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001; andNMFS,
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003a.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000260
0.000512
0.00434
0.0132
0.0251
0.0377
App. Gl-10
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-18: Paddlefish Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age 21+
Age 22+
Sources: Coriander,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
3.23
3.23
0.570
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
1969; Froese andPauly, 2001; andNMFS,
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2003a.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000434
0.0000816
0.0578
0.453
7.10
16.3
27.4
31.6
37.3
41.6
43.7
49.2
51.9
54.6
60.6
63.5
68.1
72.7
75.5
80.8
82.6
85.4
87.9
96.2
102
App. Gl-11
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age 21+
Age 22+
Age 23+
Age 24+
Age 25+
Age 26+
Age 27+
Table Gl-19:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Name (M)
1.08
5.49
5.49
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
Pike Life History Parameters8
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
a. Includes grass pickerel, muskellunge, and northern pike.
Sources: Coriander, 1969; Pennsylvania, 1999; Froese and Pauly,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2001; andNMFS,
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000189
0.0133
0.0451
0.365
1.10
1.53
2.72
6.19
7.02
8.92
12.3
13.9
16.6
19.0
24.2
25.3
30.0
32.4
34.3
45.6
45.8
47.7
48.8
48.9
49.0
49.1
49.2
49.3
49.4
49.4
2003a.
App. Gl-12
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-20: Rainbow Smelt Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Sources: Spigarelli
NMFS, 2003a.
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
11.5
5.50
0.916
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
et al, 1981; PG&E National Energy Group,
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0 0.
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2001; Froese andPauly
Weight
(Ibs)
000000990
0.00110
0.00395
0.0182
0.0460
0.0850
0.131
0.180
0.228
, 2003; and
Table Gl-21: Redhorse Species Life
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
2.30
2.99
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
History Parameters3
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00000370
0.0267
0.0521
0.180
0.493
0.653
0.916
2.78
3.07
a. Includes golden redhorse, river redhorse, shorthead redhorse, silver redhorse, and other redhorses not
identified to species.
Sources: Coriander, 1969; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Froese andPauly, 2001, 2003; and NMFS,
2003a.
APP. Gl-13
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-22: River Carpsucker Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Sources: Carlander,
2003a.
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
(M) (F)
2.05 0
2.56 0
2.30 0
0.548 0
0.548 0
0.548 0
0.548 0
0.548 0
0.548 0
1969; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Froese
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
andPauly, 2001,
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000312
0.0000343
0.000239
0.0594
0.310
0.377
0.735
0.981
1.10
2003; andNMFS,
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Table Gl-23: Sauger Life History
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
(M) (F)
1.05 0
3.55 0
1.62 0
0.230 0.05
0.230 0.05
0.230 0.05
0.230 0.05
0.230 0.05
0.230 0.05
0.230 0.05
0.230 0.05
Parameters3
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000619
0.00000681
0.0341
0.505
1.03
1.53
2.19
2.27
3.82
4.65
4.80
a. Includes sauger and walleye.
Sources: Carlander, 1997; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Froese andPauly, 2001; andNMFS, 2003a.
App. Gl-14
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-24: Shiner Species Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
4.61
0.777
0.371
4.61
4.61
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000473
0.000285
0.00209
0.00387
0.00683
0.0143
a. Includes bigeye shiner, common shiner, emerald shiner, golden shiner, mimic shiner, river shiner,
rosyface shiner, sand shiner, spotfin shiner, spottail shiner, and other shiners not identified to species.
Sources: Fuchs, 1967; Wapora, 1979; Trautman, 1981; Froese andPauly, 2003; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table Gl-25: Skipjack Herring Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Sources: Trautman,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
4.25
4.25
0.700
0.700
0.700
1981; Wallusetal,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1990; Froese andPauly,
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000227
0.000381
0.0572
0.301
0.833
1.74
2001; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table Gl-26: Spotted Sucker Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Sources: Carlander,
2003a.
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.79
2.81
3.00
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1969; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Froese andPauly, 2001, 2003
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00000198
0.0213
0.0863
0.690
1.24
1.70
1.92
1.99
; andNMFS,
App. Gl-15
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-27: Striped Bass Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Sources: Bason,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.39
7.32
3.29
1.10
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.06
0.20
0.63
0.94
1.0
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000224
0.00000606
0.0109
0.485
2.06
3.31
4.93
6.50
8.58
12.3
14.3
16.1
18.8
19.6
22.4
27.0
34.6
41.5
1971; PSE&G, 1999; andNMFS, 2003a.
App. Gl-16
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Table Gl-28: Sucker
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.87
1.73
2.98
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
(Ictiobus spp.) Life
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
History Parameters"
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000390
0.00214
0.00851
1.14
1.82
2.63
3.48
4.64
5.04
11.1
12.7
16.8
27.8
28.0
36.1
36.2
36.3
36.5
a. Includes bigmouth buffalo and smallmouth buffalo.
Sources: Coriander, 1969; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Kleinhoh, 2000; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table Gl-29: Sucker Species Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
Weight
(Ibs)
Eggs
2.05
0
0
0.0000312
Larvae
2.56
0.0000343
Juvenile
2.30
0.000239
Age 1+
0.274
0.0594
Age 2+
0.274
0.310
Age 3+
0.274
0.377
Age 4+
0.274
0.735
Age 5+
0.274
0.981
Age 6+
0.274
0
0
1.10
a. Includes carpsuckers, highfin carpsucker, northern hog sucker, quillback, white sucker, and other
suckers not identified to species.
Sources: Carlander, 1969; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Froese andPauly, 2003; andNMFS, 2003a.
APP. Gl-17
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Table Gl-30:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.71
0.687
0.687
1.61
1.61
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
a. Includes green sunfish, longear sunfish
sunfish not identified to species.
Sources: Coriander, 1977; Wang, 1986;
Sunfish Life History Parameters8
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
, pumpkinseed, redear sunfish, rock bass,
PSE&G, 1999; Froese andPauly, 2001;
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00000123
0.000878
0.00666
0.0271
0.0593
0.0754
0.142
0.180
0.214
0.232
warmouth, and other
andNMFS, 200 3 a.
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Table Gl-31:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.05
3.55
1.93
0.431
0.161
0.161
0.161
0.161
0.161
0.161
0.161
0.161
Walleye Life History
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Sources: Coriander, 1997;. Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Thomas and Haas, 2000
2001, 2003; andNMFS, 2003a.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000619
0.0000768
0.0300
0.328
0.907
1.77
2.35
3.37
3.97
4.66
5.58
5.75
; Froese and Pauly,
App. Gl-18
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-32: White Bass Life History
Parameters"
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
a. Includes white bass
Sources: Van Oosten,
McDermot and Rose,
1.90 0
4.61 0
1.39 0
0.420 0
0.420 0.70
0.420 0.70
0.420 0.70
0.420 0.70
0.420 0.70
0.420 0.70
and temperate bass not identified to species.
1942; Geo-Marine, Inc., 1978;, Coriander,
2000; Froese andPauly, 2001; andNMFS,
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1997; Virginia
2003a.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000396
0.00000174
0.174
0.467
0.644
1.02
1.16
1.26
1.66
1.68
Tech, 1998;
Table Gl-33: White Perch Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
Stage Name (M) (F)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
2.75 0
5.37 0
1.71 0
0.693 0
0.693 0
0.693 0.15
0.689 0.15
1.58 0.15
1.54 0.15
1.48 0.15
1.46 0.15
1.46 0.15
1.46 0.15
Sources: Horseman andShirey, 1974; PSE&G, 1999; andNMFS,
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.0008
0.027
0.21
0.48
0.84
1.0
1.0
1.0
2003a.
Weight
(Ib)
0.000000330
0.00000271
0.00259
0.0198
0.0567
0.103
0.150
0.214
0.265
0.356
0.387
0.516
0.619
App. Gl-19
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-34: Yellow Perch Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Sources: Wapora,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.75
3.56
2.53
0.361
0.249
0.844
0.844
0.844
0.844
1979; PSE&G, 1999;
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
Thomas and Haas, 2000;
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
andNMFS, 2003a.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000655
0.000000728
0.0232
0.0245
0.0435
0.0987
0.132
0.166
0.214
Table Gl-35: Other Recreational Species Life History Parameters3
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.08
5.71
2.85
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
a. Includes banded sculpin, coho salmon, rainbow trout, and trout-perch.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbin et al, 1983; Ruppert et al, 1985; Able andFahay, 1998; PSE&G,
1999; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; ASMFC, 200Ib; andNMFS, 2003a.
APP. Gl-20
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-36: Other Forage Species Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.04
7.70
1.29
1.62
1.62
1.62
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000186
0.00000158
0.000481
0.00381
0.00496
0.00505
a. Includes American eel, chestnut lamprey, goldeye, longnose gar, madtoms, mooneye, silver lamprey,
and other forage fish not identified to species.
Sources: Derickson and Price, 1973; andPSE&G, 1999.
APP. Gl-21
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G2
Chapter G2: Evaluation of Impingement and
Entrainment in the Inland Region
G2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups
Evaluated
Table G2-1 provides a list of species/species groups
that were evaluated in EPA's analysis of
impingement and entrainment (I&E) in the Inland
region. There is not a significant level of commercial
fishing in the interior U.S. Therefore, EPA has
assumed that all I&E losses in this region affect
recreational fisheries only.
Chapter Contents
G2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated G2-1
G2-2 I&E Data Evaluated G2-3
G2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III
Facilities in the Inland Region Expressed as
Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Yield G2-4
G2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities
in the Inland Region Under
Alternative Options G2-7
G2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating
Recreational and Commercial Losses G2-7
Table G2-1: Species/Species Groups Evaluated by EPA that are
I&E in the Inland Region
Species/Species
Alewife
American shad
Bay anchovy
Bigmouth buffalo
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Blue crab
Blueback herring
Bluegill
Bluntnose minnow
Brown bullhead
Bullhead species
Burbot
Carp
Channel catfish
Crappie
Darter species
Emerald shiner
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
Gobies
Group Recreational Commercial
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Subject to
Forage
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G2-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region Chapter G2
Table G2-1: Species/Species Groups Evaluated by EPA that are Subject to
I&E in the Inland Region
Species/Species Group Recreational Commercial Forage
Golden redhorse
Herrings
Hogchoker
Logperch
Menhaden species
Muskellunge
Other (forage)
Other (recreational and commercial)
Other (recreational)
Paddlefish
Pallid sturgeon
Rainbow smelt
River carpsucker
Sauger
Sea basses (recreational)
Shiner species
Silversides
Skipjack herring
Smallmouth bass
Smelts
Spotted sucker
Striped bass
Striped killifish
Sturgeon species
Sucker species
Sunfish
Threespine stickleback
Walleye
White bass
White perch
Whitefish
Yellow perch
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
The life history data used in EPA's analysis and associated data sources are provided in Appendix Gl of this
report.
G2-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region Chapter G2
G2-2 I&E Data Evaluated
Table G2-2 lists Inland facility I&E data evaluated by EPA to estimate current I&E rates for the region. See
Chapter Al of Part A for a discussion of the methods used to evaluate the I&E data. The facility studies used for
EPA's analysis are provided in the 316(b) docket.
Table G2-2: Facility I&E Data Evaluated for the Inland Region Analysis
Facility
AES Cayuga
Albany Generating Station
Barry Steam Plant
Black River Power LLC Electric Generation Facility (Fort
Drum Cogeneration Fac)
Braidwood Nuclear Generating Station
Callaway
Cardinal Plant
Clifry Creek Station
Cogentrix Roxboro
Comanche
Council Bluffs
Dexter Corp./Nonwoven Div. (CT)
Dickerson Generating Station
Duane Arnold Nuclear Power Plant (IA)
Eastman Chemical Company Arkansas Eastman Division (AR)
Eckert Station
Elrama Power Plant
Erickson (MI)
Finch, Pruyn, & Company Inc. (NY)
Fort Drum HTW Cogenerational Facility
G.G. Allen Steam Station
Gorgas Steam Plant
H B. Robinson
Hatfield's Ferry Power Station (PA)
James H. Miller Jr. (AL)
Kammer Plant
Kyger Creek Station
Labadie
Meramec
Miami Fort Generating Station
Newton
Oconee
Pearl Station (IL)
Phase
II
II
II
III
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
III
II
III
III
II
II
III
III
III
II
II
II
III
III
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
III
Years of Data
1976-1987
19744984
1976
1993
1988
1984-1985
1978
1977-1986
1980
1993
1976
1990
1978
1980
1980
1975
1978
1976
1993
1993
1973
1985
1973-1975
1980
1978-1986
1978
1978
1974
1974
1978
1983-1986
1974-1976
1977
G2-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G2
Table G2-2: Facility I&E Data
Facility
Philip Sporn Plant
Putnam
Seminole (FL)
Sherburne Co. (MM)
Tanners Creek Plant
Three Mile Island
W.H. Sammis Generating Station
Wabash River Plant
Walter C. Beckjord Generating Station
Wateree Generating Station
Winyah Generating Station (SC)
Evaluated for the Inland
Region Analysis
Phase Years of Data
II
III
III
III
II
II
II
II
II
II
III
1978
1979
1979
1974-1975
1977
1977
1977
1976
1977
1976
1981
G2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Inland Region
Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Yield
Table G2-3 provides EPA's estimate of the annual age-1 equivalents and foregone fishery yield resulting from the
impingement of aquatic species at facilities located in the Inland region. Table G2-4 displays this information for
entrainment. Note that in these tables, "total yield" includes direct losses of harvested species and the yield of
harvested species that is lost due to losses of forage species (trophic transfer). As discussed in Chapter A1 of
Part A of the section 316(b) Phase III Regional Benefits Assessment, the conversion of forage to yield contributes
only a very small fraction to total yield.
Table G2-3: Estimated Current Annual Impingement at Phase III Facilities in
the Inland Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Alewife
American shad
Bay anchovy
Bigmouth buffalo
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
37,800
7,030
2,880
873
1,120
1,990
Total Yield
(Ibs)
<1
1,730
<1
<1
88
335
Blue crab <1 <1
Blueback herring
Bluegill
Bluntnose minnow
Brown bullhead
Bullhead species
Burbot
Carp
Channel catfish
Crappie
251,000
285,000
6,350
7,460
8,980
45
14,400
219,000
15,100
<1
5,520
<1
615
736
<1
<1
45,400
2,550
G2-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region Chapter G2
Table G2-3: Estimated Current Annual Impingement at Phase III Facilities in
the Inland Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Darter species
Emerald shiner
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
41,000
8,480,000
93,600
10,100,000
Total Yield
(Ibs)
<1
<1
22,500
<1
Gobies <1 <1
Golden redhorse
Herrings
Hogchoker
Logperch
Menhaden species
Muskellunge
Other (forage)
Other (recreational and commercial)
Other (recreational)
Paddlefish
Pallid sturgeon
Rainbow smelt
River carpsucker
Sauger
Sea basses (recreational)
Shiner species
Silversides
Skipjack herring
Smallmouth bass
Smelts
Spotted sucker
Striped bass
Striped killifish
Sturgeon species
Sucker species
Sunfish
Threespine stickleback
Trophic transfer3
Walleye
White bass
White perch
Whitefish
Yellow perch
a Contribution of forage fish to yield based on
1,550
11,400,000
2,090
1,330
138
30
7,730,000
76
1,170
1,420
9
4
1,380
12,900
61
362,000
4,950
7,650
31,100
2
47
21,200
165
437
4,400
2,680,000
36
<1
171
53,000
90,600
13
180,000
trophic transfer (see
<1
<1
<1
<1
27
113
<1
15
231
7,430
<1
<1
<1
3,520
15
<1
<1
<1
1,260
<1
<1
29,600
<1
2,060
<1
1,930
<1
127,000
152
16,200
40
12
2,510
Chapter A 1).
G2-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region Chapter G2
Table G2-4: Estimated Current Annual Entrainment at Phase III Facilities in
the Inland Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Fishery Yield
Species Group
Age-1 Equivalents (#s) Total Yield (Ibs)
American shad <1 <1
Bigmouth buffalo
6,180 <1
Black bullhead <1 <1
Black crappie
Blueback herring
Bluegill
Bluntnose minnow
Brown bullhead
Bullhead species
Burbot
Carp
Channel catfish
Crappie
Darter species
Emerald shiner
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
Gobies
Golden redhorse
Herrings
Logperch
9 2
1,210 <1
17,800 344
7,730,000 <1
11,000 909
11,200 923
31 <1
1,010,000 <1
73,300 15,200
133,000 22,400
320,000 <1
512,000 <1
365,000 87,900
870,000 <1
3,480 <1
1,430 <1
879,000 <1
30,200 <1
Muskellunge <1 <1
Other (forage)
701,000 <1
Other (recreational and commercial) <1 <1
Other (recreational)
Paddlefish
3,440 679
788 4,140
Pallid sturgeon <1 <1
Rainbow smelt
River carpsucker
Sauger
2 <1
4,050 <1
192,000 52,000
Sea basses (recreational) <1 <1
Shiner species
Silversides
Skipjack herring
Smallmouth bass
103,000 <1
499 <1
417 <1
268,000 10,800
Smelts <1 <1
Spotted sucker <1 <1
Striped bass <1 <1
G2-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region Chapter G2
Table G2-4: Estimated Current Annual Entrainment at Phase III Facilities in
the Inland Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Fishery Yield
Species Group Age-1 Equivalents (#s) Total Yield (Ibs)
Striped killifish <1 <1
Sturgeon species 2,450 11,500
Sucker species 3,390,000 <1
Sunfish 6,210,000 4,480
Threespine stickleback <1 <1
Trophic transfer3 <1 57,400
Walleye 70,800 63,200
White bass 15,100 4,630
White perch 35,700 16
Whitefish <1 <1
Yellow perch 15,300 212
a Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
G2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Inland Region Under Alternative
Options
Table G2-5 presents estimated reductions in I&E under the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200
MGD for All Waterbodies" option, and the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option. Reductions under all
other options are presented in Appendix G2.
Table G2-5: Estimated Reductions in I&E Under Three Alternative Options
Age-1 Equivalents Foregone Fishery Yield
Option (#s) (Ibs)
50 MGD All Option 19,700,000 155,000
200 MGD All Option 12,700,000 107,000
100 MGD Option 0 0
G2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating Recreational and Commercial Losses
Unlike the other regions, all losses in the Inland region are assumed to be to recreational fisheries. Therefore, it
was not necessary to partition losses between commercial and recreational fisheries.
See Chapter G4 for results of the recreational fishing benefits analysis. As discussed in Chapter A8, benefits were
discounted to account for (1) the time to achieve compliance once a Phase III final regulation for existing facilities
would have become effective, and (2) the time it takes for fish spared from I&E to reach a harvestable age.
G2-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix G2
Appendix G2: Reductions in I&E Under
Supplemental Policy Options
Table G2-1: Estimated Reductions in I&E in the
Inland Region Under Eight Supplemental Options
Option
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
Foregone Fishery Yield
(Ibs)
I-only Everywhere
I&E like Phase II
I&E Everywhere
Electric Generators 2-50 MGD
473,000 3,050
509,000 3,590
802,000 7,870
I-only Everywhere
I&E like Phase II
I&E Everywhere
Manufacturers 2-50 MGD
3,320,000 21,400
3,660,000 26,500
4,880,000 44,300
I-only Everywhere
I&E Everywhere
Manufacturers 50+ MGD
16,200,000 105,000
24,600,000 228,000
App. G2-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region Chapter G3
Chapter G3: Commercial Fishing Benefits
There is no significant level of commercial fishing in the interior United States. Therefore, EPA has assumed that
all impingement and entrainment losses in this region affect recreational fisheries only. As a result, commercial
fishing losses and benefits for the Inland region are assumed to be $0.
G3-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region Appendix G3
Appendix G3: Commercial Fishing Benefits
Under Supplemental Policy Options
There is no significant level of commercial fishing in the interior United States. Therefore, EPA has assumed that
all impingement and entrainment losses in this region affect recreational fisheries only. As a result, baseline
commercial fishing losses and benefits for the Inland region are assumed to be $0. For additional information on
the options, please see the TDD.
App. G3-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G4
Chapter G4: Recreational Use Benefits
Chapter Contents
G4-1
G4-2
Benefit Transfer Approach Based on
Meta-Analysis G4-1
G4-1.1 Baseline Losses and Reductions in
Recreational Fishery Losses Under
the Regulatory Options G4-2
G4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits
from Eliminating Baseline I&E
Losses G4-3
G4-1.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of
the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies"
Option G4-4
G4-1.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of
the "200 MGD for All
Waterbodies" Option G4-5
G4-1.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of
the "100 MGD for Certain
Waterbodies" Option G4-6
Limitations and Uncertainty G4-6
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the recreational
fishing benefits analysis for the Inland region. The
chapter presents EPA's estimates of baseline
(i.e., current) annual recreational fishery losses from
impingement and entrainment (I&E) at potentially
regulated facilities in the Inland region and annual
reductions in these losses under the regulatory
options for Phase III existing facilities.1.:
>• the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option,
» the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option,
and
» the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies"
option.
The chapter then presents the estimated welfare gain
to Inland anglers from eliminating baseline
recreational fishing losses from I&E and the
expected benefits under the regulatory options.
EPA estimated the recreational benefits of reducing and eliminating I&E losses using a benefit transfer
methodology based on a meta-analysis of the marginal value of catching different species offish. This meta-
analysis is discussed in detail in Chapter A5, "Recreational Fishing Benefits Methodology."
EPA considered a wide range of policy options in developing this regulation. In addition to the regulatory options,
EPA evaluated various supplemental options. For additional information on the options, please see the TDD.
Appendix G4 presents results of the recreational fishing benefits analysis for the supplemental options.
G4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-Analysis
EPA estimated the recreational welfare gain from the reduction in annual I&E losses expected under the policy
options, and the welfare gain from eliminating I&E at potentially regulated facilities, using a benefit transfer
approach. As discussed in Chapter A5, the Agency used a meta-analysis regression equation to estimate the
marginal recreational value per additional fish caught by anglers, for different species in different regions. Since
I&E at potentially regulated facilities affects a variety of species, EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to
one of the general species groups used in the meta-analysis. The Agency then calculated the economic value of
reducing or eliminating baseline I&E losses, for each species group, by multiplying the value per fish for that
species group by the number offish in the group that are lost in the baseline or saved under the policy options.2.
In general, the fit between the species with I&E losses and the species groups in the meta-analysis was good.
However, EPA's estimates of baseline I&E losses and reductions in I&E under the policy options included losses
1 See the Introduction to this report for a description of the regulatory options.
The estimates of I&E presented in this chapter include only the fraction of impinged and entrained recreational
fish that would be caught by anglers. The total amount of I&E of recreational species is actually much higher.
G4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G4
of "unidentified" species. The "unidentified" group includes fish lost indirectly through trophic transfer, as well as
species for which no species information was available.3. Rather than using the meta-analysis regression to try to
predict the value per fish for an "unidentified" species, EPA assumed that per-fish values for these species can be
approximated by the weighted average value per fish for all species affected by I&E in the Inland region..4
G4-1.1 Baseline Losses and Reductions in Recreational Fishery Losses Under the Regulatory Options
Table G4-1 presents EPA's estimates of baseline (i.e., current) annual recreational I&E losses at potentially
regulated facilities, and annual reductions in these losses under each of the regulatory options, in the Inland
region. The table shows that total baseline losses to recreational fisheries are 0.66 million fish per year. In
comparison, the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option prevents losses of 0.17 million fish per year, and the
"200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option prevents losses of 0.12 million fish per year. No reduction in losses is
expected under the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option. Of all the affected species, sunfish, bluegill, and
channel catfish, along with unidentified species, have the highest losses in the baseline and the highest prevented
losses under the regulatory options.
Table G4-1: Baseline Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III Facilities
and Reductions in Recreational Losses Under the Regulatory Options in the Inland Region
Baseline Annual Recreational
Fishing Losses
Annual Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses
(# of fish)
Species8'"
American shad
Paddlefishc
Striped bass
Sturgeon0
Total (small game)
Northern pike
Sauger
Walleye
Total (walleye/pike)
Smallmouth bass
Spotted bass
White bass
Total (bass)
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Bluegill
Brown bullhead
(# of fish)
416.2
419.9
2,654.5
195.5
3,686.1
3.7
19,980.6
20,153.8
40,138.1
14,487.6
11.1
22,483.4
36,982.0
185.5
510.2
57,402.6
3,924.8
50 MGD All
160.7
126.4
1,025.0
35.9
1,348.0
1.4
3,253.4
2,988.9
6,243.7
2,499.2
4.3
7,493.0
9,996.4
71.6
196.5
21,362.0
957.6
200 MGD All
95.9
81.8
611.6
28.5
817.7
0.8
2,738.3
2,639.8
5,378.9
2,044.1
2.6
4,683.0
6,729.7
42.7
117.3
12,889.0
671.0
100 MGD CWBe
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
In addition to recreational fish that are lost because they are impinged or entrained, some recreational fish are lost
because the forage fish that they feed on are impinged or entrained, and thus removed from the food chain. These
trophic transfer losses of recreational species are included in EPA's estimates of total I&E losses. Since it is difficult to
predict which recreational species would be affected by losses of forage fish, these losses are classified as
"unidentified" recreational species. Also included in the "unidentified" group are losses offish that were reported by
facilities without information about their exact species.
4 EPA used the estimated level of baseline recreational losses for each species group as a weighting factor.
G4-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G4
Table G4-1: Baseline Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III Facilities
and Reductions in Recreational Losses Under the Regulatory Options in the Inland Region
Baseline Annual Recreatioi
Fishing Losses
Species3'" (# of fish)
Bullhead
Channel catfish
Crappie
Menhaden
Sunfish
White perch
Yellow perch
Total (panfish)
Whitefishd
Total (trout)
Total (unidentified)
Total (all species)
3,478.7
48,922.1
37,849.4
41.7
103,406.3
239.6
21,591.0
277,552.2
8.0
8.0
299,651.3
658,017.6
iaj Annual Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses
(# of fish)
50 MGD All
881.8
15,964.5
6,514.1
16.1
22,703.7
76.4
7,935.0
76,679.5
3.1
3.1
80,260.7
174,531.4
200 MGD All
608.6
10,047.9
5,334.0
9.6
16,623.7
48.5
4,806.2
51,198.7
1.8
1.8
54,220.2
118,347.0
100 MGD CWBe
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
a. EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to one of the species groups used in the meta-analysis. The
"unidentified" group includes fish lost indirectly through trophic transfer, fish reported lost without information about
their species, and freshwater drum. Freshwater drum were included in this group because there were no valuation
studies available and this species does not correspond well with any of the other species groups.
b This table includes several species of anadromous fish (such as American shad and striped bass) that are classified in
saltwater species groups, but that are commonly caught in freshwater during part of their life cycle.
°. No valuation studies were available for freshwater sturgeon or paddlefish. EPA included these two species in the
"small game" group because the typical size of these species is consistent with (or larger than) the size of other species
in the "small game" group. Adult lake sturgeon generally weigh 10 to 80 pounds and measure three to five feet in
length, and may grow as large as 300 pounds and seven feet long (NYSDEC, 2003). White sturgeon, which are
anadromous, can grow to 400 pounds or 10 feet in length (Monterey Bay Aquarium, 1999). Paddlefish are also very
large, averaging between 3.3 and 4.8 feet in length (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993).
d EPA included whitefish in the "trout" category because its physical characteristics are similar to trout, and lake
whitefish are prized for their meat. Therefore, valuing them in the panfish category would be inappropriate.
e No facilities in the Inland region would be regulated under the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option, so no
benefits are expected in this region under this option.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
G4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses
Table G4-2 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the welfare gain to recreational anglers from eliminating
baseline recreational fishery losses at potentially regulated facilities in the Inland region. The table presents
baseline annual recreational I&E losses, the estimated value per fish, and the monetized annual welfare gain from
eliminating recreational losses, for each species group. Total baseline recreational fishing losses for the Inland
region are 658.0 thousand fish per year. The undiscounted annual welfare gain to Inland anglers from eliminating
these losses is $1.25 million (2004$), with lower and upper bounds of $0.69 million and $2.26 million. Evaluated
at 3% and 7% discount rates, the mean annualized welfare gain of eliminating these losses is $1.21 million and
$1.16 million, respectively. The majority of monetized recreational losses from I&E under baseline conditions are
attributable to losses of freshwater drum (categorized in the "unidentified" group) and other "unidentified"
species.
G4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G4
Table G4-2: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E at Potentially Regulated
Phase III Facilities in the Inland Region (2004$)
Baseline Annual
Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish1
Annualized Benefits from
Eliminating Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands)0'"
Species Group
Small game6
Trout
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)8
3.7
0.0. f
40.1
37.0
277.6
299.7
658.0
658.0
658.0
Low
$1.19
$1.22
$1.85
$4.45
$0.48
$1.05
Mean
$4.51
$2.38
$3.45
$7.59
$0.89
$1.88
High
$16.82
$4.62
$6.51
$12.96
$1.63
$3.36
Low
$4.4
$0.08
$74.2
$164.7
$133.0
$314.1
$690.3
$669.6
$644.8
Mean
$16.6
$0.08
$138.7
$280.6
$247.0
$562.9
$1,245.8
$1,208.4
$1,163.7
High
$62.0
$0.08
$261.1
$479.2
$452.1
$1,007.5
$2,262.0
$2,194.1
$2,112.8
a. Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have been caught by
recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 for more details on this approach.
°. Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying baseline losses by the estimated value per fish.
d Annualized values represent the total welfare gain over the time frame of the analysis from eliminating recreational
losses, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
and annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
e The small game species group includes sturgeon. However, applying the use value for small game to sturgeon may
understate the value of this species. A marine fishing valuation study indicates that California anglers are willing to
pay $63.15 (2004$) to catch a sturgeon in saltwater (U.S. EPA, 2004a). However, sturgeon in freshwater are often
landlocked and may not be as large as sturgeon found in saltwater, and therefore not as valuable.
f Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
8 Denotes a positive value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
G4-1.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table G4-3 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies"
option for the Inland region. The table presents the annual reduction in recreational I&E losses expected under
this option, the estimated value per fish, and annual monetized recreational welfare gain from this option, by
species group. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 174.5 thousand fish per year,
resulting in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $0.32 million (2004$), with lower and upper
bounds of $0.18 million and $0.59 million. Evaluated at 3% and 7% discount rates, the mean annualized welfare
gain from this reduction in recreational losses is $0.27 million and $0.22 million, respectively. The majority of
benefits result from reduced losses of freshwater drum (categorized in the "unidentified" group) and other
"unidentified" species.
G4-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G4
Table G4-3: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option in the Inland
Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fishb
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)
c,d
Species Group
Small game6
Trout
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)8
1.3
0.0.f
6.2
10.0
76.7
80.3
174.5
174.5
174.5
Low
$1.19
$1.22
$1.85
$4.45
$0.48
$1.05
Mean
$4.51
$2.38
$3.45
$7.59
$0.89
$1.88
High
$16.82
$4.62
$6.51
$12.96
$1.63
$3.36
Low
$1.6
$0.08
$11.5
$44.5
$36.7
$84.1
$178.5
$152.2
$124.3
Mean
$6.1
$0.08
$21.6
$75.9
$68.2
$150.8
$322.5
$274.9
$224.5
High
$22.7
$0.08
$40.6
$129.5
$124.9
$269.9
$587.6
$500.9
$409.0
a. Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have been caught by
recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 for more details on this approach.
°. Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual reduction in recreational losses by the estimated value
per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
e The small game species group includes sturgeon. However, applying the use value for small game to sturgeon may
understate the value of this species. A marine fishing valuation study indicates that California anglers are willing to
pay $63.15 (2004$) to catch a sturgeon in saltwater (U.S. EPA, 2004a). However, sturgeon in freshwater are often
landlocked and may not be as large as sturgeon found in saltwater, and therefore not as valuable.
f Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
8 Denotes a positive value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
G4-1.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table G4-4 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational benefits of the "200 MGD for All
Waterbodies" option for the Inland region. The table presents the annual reduction in recreational I&E losses
expected under this option, the estimated value per fish, and annual monetized recreational welfare gain from this
option, by species group. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 118.3 thousand fish per
year, resulting in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $0.22 million (2004$), with lower and
upper bounds of $0.12 million and $0.40 million. Evaluated at 3% and 7% discount rates, the mean annualized
welfare gain from this reduction in recreational losses is $0.19 million and $0.15 million, respectively. The
majority of benefits result from reduced losses of freshwater drum (categorized in the "unidentified" group) and
other "unidentified" species.
G4-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G4
Table G4-4: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option in the Inland
Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fishb
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)'
c,d
Species Group
Small game6
Trout
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)3
0.8
0.0.f
5.4
6.7
51.2
54.2
118.3
118.3
118.3
Low
$1.19
$1.22
$1.85
$4.45
$0.48
$1.05
Mean
$4.51
$2.38
$3.45
$7.59
$0.89
$1.88
High
$16.82
$4.62
$6.51
$12.96
$1.63
$3.36
Low
$1.0
$0.08
$9.9
$30.0
$24.5
$56.8
$122.2
$104.3
$85.3
Mean
$3.7
$0.08
$18.6
$51.1
$45.6
$101.9
$220.8
$188.4
$154.1
High
$13.8
$0.08
$35.0
$87.2
$83.4
$182.3
$401.7
$342.8
$280.3
a. Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have been caught by
recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 for more details on this approach.
°. Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual reduction in recreational losses by the estimated value
per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
e The small game species group includes losses of sturgeon. However, applying the use value for small game to
sturgeon may understate the value of this species. A marine fishing valuation study indicates that California anglers
are willing to pay $63.15 (2004$) to catch a sturgeon in saltwater (U.S. EPA, 2004a). However, sturgeon in freshwater
are often landlocked and may not be as large as sturgeon found in saltwater, and therefore not as valuable.
f Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
8 Denotes a positive value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
G4-1.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
No facilities in the Inland region are regulated under the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option. Thus, no
recreational benefits are expected under this option in this region.
G4-2 Limitations and Uncertainty
The results of the benefit transfer based on a meta-analysis represent EPA's best estimate of the recreational
benefits of the regulatory options. Nonetheless, there are a number of limitations and uncertainties inherent in
these estimates. General limitations pertaining to the development of the meta-analysis model, the use of the
model to estimate per-fish values, and the validity of the benefit transfer are discussed in section A5-3.3e and
section A5-5.3 of the recreational fishing benefits methodology chapter. In addition to these general concerns
about the analysis, there are some limitations and uncertainties that are specific to the Inland region.
G4-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region Chapter G4
One limitation of applying the meta-analysis to the Inland region is that the Inland region is extremely diverse (by
definition, it includes the entire continental U.S.). The studies used for the meta-analysis were conducted in only a
few geographic regions. In particular, most of the studies that evaluated WTP for walleye, pike, and panfish were
conducted in the Great Lakes (in Michigan or Wisconsin). Thus, the average values per fish predicted by the
regression equation may not represent the actual value per fish in all areas of the U.S.
Another limitation of the analysis is that EPA was unable to locate any studies that evaluated WTP for channel
catfish or for freshwater drum, two species with high I&E losses in the Inland region. However, the Agency
believes that the per-fish values for channel catfish and freshwater drum can be approximated by the per-fish
values for "panfish" and "unidentified" species, respectively.
G4-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix G4
Appendix G4: Recreational Use Benefits
Under Supplemental Policy Options
Appendix Contents
G4-1
G4-2
Recreational Fishing Benefits of the
Supplemental Options G4-1
G4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in
Recreational Fishing Losses
Under the Supplemental Options G4-1
G4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits
of the Supplemental Options G4-4
Comparison of Recreational Fishing
Benefits by Option G4-12
Introduction
Chapter G4 presents EPA's estimates of the
recreational benefits of the three regulatory options
for the section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities in
the Inland region. To facilitate comparisons among
the options, this appendix presents estimates of the
recreational fishing benefits of various supplemental
options that EPA evaluated in preparation for this
rule:
»• "Electric Generators 2-50 MOD I-only
Everywhere" option;
*• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option;
>• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option;
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option;
•> "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option;
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option;
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere" option; and
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I&E Everywhere" option.
For additional information on the options, please see the TDD. Recreational fishing benefits presented in this
chapter were estimated using the benefit transfer approach discussed in Chapter G4 and in Chapter A5,
"Recreational Fishing Benefits Methodology."
G4-1 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Supplemental Options
G4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses Under the Supplemental Options
Table G4-1 presents EPA's estimates of the annual reduction in baseline (i.e., current) recreational fishing losses
from impingement and entrainment (I&E) in the Inland region under the supplemental options.
App. G4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix G4
Table G4-1
: Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E Under the Supplemental Options in the Inland Region
Annual Reduction in Recreational Losses
(# of fish)
Species8'"
American shad
Paddlefishc
Striped bass
Sturgeon0
Total (small game)
Northern pike
S auger
Walleye
Total (walleye/pike)
Smallmouth bass
Spotted bass
White bass
Total (bass)
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Bluegill
Brown bullhead
Bullhead
Channel catfish
Crappie
Menhaden
Sunfish
White perch
Yellow perch
Electric
I-only
Everywhere
4.7
3.0
29.8
0.3
37.8
0.0
14.2
0.5
14.8
16.9
0.1
196.4
213.4
2.1
5.7
606.6
17.8
17.3
411.4
43.4
0.5
349.7
1.9
223.4
Generators 2-50 MGD
I&E like
Phase II
4.7
3.3
29.8
0.6
38.3
0.0
43.8
32.4
76.2
37.4
0.1
204.3
241.9
2.1
5.7
611.9
21.5
20.4
430.8
97.2
0.5
464.1
2.0
226.1
I&E
Everywhere
4.7
5.2
29.8
2.7
42.4
0.0
282.2
288.4
570.6
202.8
0.1
267.8
470.7
2.1
5.7
654.8
51.3
45.0
587.1
529.9
0.5
1,384.2
2.9
247.6
Manufacturers 2-50 MGD
I-only
Everywhere
32.8
21.2
208.9
2.3
265.2
0.3
99.6
3.8
103.7
118.5
0.9
1,377.1
1,496.5
14.6
40.0
4,252.7
124.7
121.5
2,884.4
304.6
3.3
2,452.0
13.5
1,566.6
I&E like
Phase II
32.8
23.5
208.9
4.8
270.0
0.3
381.1
306.3
687.7
313.8
0.9
1,452.1
1,766.8
14.6
40.0
4,303.4
159.9
150.6
3,069.1
815.7
3.3
3,538.9
14.5
1,592.0
I&E
Everywhere
32.8
31.5
208.9
13.6
286.8
0.3
1,374.7
1,373.7
2,748.7
1,003.0
0.9
1,716.9
2,720.7
14.6
40.1
4,482.3
284.2
253.3
3,720.7
2,619.7
3.3
7,374.8
18.1
1,681.5
Manufacturers 50+ MGD
I-only
Everywhere
160.1
103.8
1,021.0
11.4
1,296.2
1.4
486.6
18.7
506.7
579.0
4.3
6,729.8
7,313.1
71.3
195.3
20,782.2
609.5
593.5
14,095.6
1,488.4
16.1
11,982.5
66.1
7,655.6
I&E
Everywhere
160.1
158.9
1,021.0
72.3
1,412.3
1.4
7,359.9
7,402.3
14,763.6
5,346.7
4.3
8,561.0
13,912.0
71.3
196.2
22,019.8
1,468.9
1,304.4
18,603.3
13,967.4
16.1
38,517.2
91.0
8,275.1
App. G4-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix G4
Table G4-1: Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E Under the Supplemental Options in the Inland Region
Annual Reduction in Recreational Losses
(# of fish)
Species8'"
Total (panfish)
Whitefishd
Total (trout)
Total (unidentified)
Total (all species)
Electric
I-only
Everywhere
1,679.9
0.1
0.1
1,694.8
3,640.9
Generators 2-50 MGD
I&E like
Phase II
1,882.3
0.1
0.1
1,930.1
4,168.9
I&E
Everywhere
3,511.2
0.1
0.1
3,823.5
8,418.5
Manufacturers 2-50 MGD
I-only
Everywhere
11,777.9
0.6
0.6
11,882.4
25,526.3
I&E like
Phase II
13,702.0
0.6
0.6
14,118.9
30,546.0
I&E
Everywhere
20,492.8
0.6
0.6
22,012.5
48,262.2
Manufacturers 50+ MGD
I-only
Everywhere
57,556.3
3.0
3.0
58,066.8
124,742.1
I&E
Everywhere
104,530.7
3.1
3.1
112,669.6
247,291.1
a. EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to one of the species groups used in the meta-analysis. The "unidentified" group includes fish lost indirectly through
trophic transfer, fish reported lost without information about their species, and freshwater drum. Freshwater drum were included in this group because there were
no valuation studies available and this species does not correspond well with any of the other species groups
b This table includes several species of anadromous fish (such as American shad and striped bass) that are classified in saltwater species groups, but that are
commonly caught in freshwater during part of their life cycle.
°. No valuation studies were available for freshwater sturgeon or paddlefish. EPA included these two species in the "small game" group because the typical size of
these species is consistent with (or larger than) the size of other species in the "small game" group. Adult lake sturgeon generally weigh 10 to 80 pounds and
measure three to five feet in length, and may grow as large as 300 pounds and seven feet long (NYSDEC, 2003). White sturgeon, which are anadromous, can grow
to 400 pounds or 10 feet in length (Monterey Bay Aquarium, 1999). Paddlefish are also very large, averaging between 3.3 and 4.8 feet in length (Jenkins and
Burkhead, 1993).
d EPA included whitefish in the "trout" category because its physical characteristics are similar to trout, and lake whitefish are prized for their meat. Therefore,
valuing them in the panfish category would be inappropriate.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. G4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix G4
G4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Supplemental Options
Tables G4-2 through G4-9 present EPA's estimates of the annualized recreational benefits of the supplemental
options in the Inland region.
Table G4-2: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere"
Option in the Inland Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish3
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Species Group
Small Gamed
Trout
Walleye/Pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
;_,
(thousands of fish)
0.0e
o.oe
o.oe
0.2
1.7
1.7
3.6
3.6
3.6
Low
$1.19
$1.22
$1.85
$4.45
$0.48
$1.05
Mean
$4.51
$2.38
$3.45
$7.59
$0.89
$1.88
High
$16.82
$4.62
$6.51
$12.96
$1.63
$3.36
Low
0.0.f
o.of
o.of
$1.0
$0.8
$1.8
$3.6
$3.1
$2.5
Mean
$0.2
0.0f
$0.1
$1.6
$1.5
$3.2
$6.5
$5.6
$4.6
High
$0.6
0.0f
$0.1
$2.8
$2.7
$5.7
$11.9
$10.2
$8.4
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d The small game species group includes sturgeon. However, applying the use value for small game to sturgeon may
understate the value of this species. A marine fishing valuation study indicates that California anglers are willing to
pay $63.15 to catch a sturgeon in saltwater (U.S. EPA, 2004a). However, sturgeon in freshwater are often landlocked
and may not be as large as sturgeon found in saltwater, and therefore not as valuable.
e Denotes a nonzero value less than 50 fish.
f Denotes a nonzero value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. G4-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix G4
Table G4-3: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase IP
Option in the Inland Region (2004$)
Species Group
Small Gamed
Trout
Walleye/Pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)
0.0e
o.oe
0.1
0.2
1.9
1.9
4.2
4.2
4.2
Value per Fish"
Low
$1.19
$1.22
$1.85
$4.45
$0.48
$1.05
Mean
$4.51
$2.38
$3.45
$7.59
$0.89
$1.88
High
$16.82
$4.62
$6.51
$12.96
$1.63
$3.36
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Low
0.0f
o.of
$0.1
$1.1
$0.9
$2.0
$4.2
$3.6
$3.0
Mean
$0.2
0.0f
$0.3
$1.8
$1.7
$3.6
$7.6
$6.5
$5.4
High
$0.6
0.0f
$0.5
$3.1
$3.1
$6.5
$13.8
$11.9
$9.8
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d The small game species group includes sturgeon. However, applying the use value for small game to sturgeon may
understate the value of this species. A marine fishing valuation study indicates that California anglers are willing to
pay $61.43 to catch a sturgeon in saltwater (U.S. EPA, 2004a). However, sturgeon in freshwater are often landlocked
and may not be as large as sturgeon found in saltwater, and therefore not as valuable.
e Denotes a nonzero value less than 50 fish.
f Denotes a nonzero value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
APP. G4-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix G4
Table G4-4: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere'
Option in the Inland Region (2004$)
Species Group
Small Gamed
Trout
Walleye/Pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)
0.0e
o.oe
0.6
0.5
3.5
3.8
8.4
8.4
8.4
Value per Fish"
Low
$1.19
$1.22
$1.85
$4.45
$0.48
$1.05
Mean
$4.51
$2.38
$3.45
$7.59
$0.89
$1.88
High
$16.82
$4.62
$6.51
$12.96
$1.63
$3.36
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Low
$0.1
o.of
$1.1
$2.1
$1.7
$4.0
$8.9
$7.6
$6.3
Mean
$0.2
0.0f
$2.0
$3.6
$3.1
$7.2
$16.0
$13.8
$11.3
High
$0.7
0.0f
$3.7
$6.1
$5.7
$12.9
$29.1
$24.9
$20.5
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d The small game species group includes sturgeon. However, applying the use value for small game to sturgeon may
understate the value of this species. A marine fishing valuation study indicates that California anglers are willing to
pay $61.43 to catch a sturgeon in saltwater (U.S. EPA, 2004a). However, sturgeon in freshwater are often landlocked
and may not be as large as sturgeon found in saltwater, and therefore not as valuable.
e Denotes a nonzero value less than 50 fish.
f Denotes a nonzero value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. G4-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix G4
Table G4-5: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere"
Option in the Inland Region (2004$)
Species Group
Small Gamed
Trout
Walleye/Pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)
0.3
0.0e
0.1
1.5
11.8
11.9
25.5
25.5
25.5
Value per Fish"
Low
$1.19
$1.22
$1.85
$4.45
$0.48
$1.05
Mean
$4.51
$2.38
$3.45
$7.59
$0.89
$1.88
High
$16.82
$4.62
$6.51
$12.96
$1.63
$3.36
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Low
$0.3
0.0f
$0.2
$6.7
$5.6
$12.5
$25.3
$21.0
$16.6
Mean
$1.2
0.0f
$0.4
$11.4
$10.5
$22.3
$45.7
$38.0
$30.0
High
$4.5
0.0f
$0.7
$19.4
$19.2
$40.0
$83.7
$69.5
$55.0
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d The small game species group includes sturgeon. However, applying the use value for small game to sturgeon may
understate the value of this species. A marine fishing valuation study indicates that California anglers are willing to
pay $61.43 to catch a sturgeon in saltwater (U.S. EPA, 2004a). However, sturgeon in freshwater are often landlocked
and may not be as large as sturgeon found in saltwater, and therefore not as valuable.
e Denotes a nonzero value less than 50 fish.
f Denotes a nonzero value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
APP. G4-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix G4
Table G4-6: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II"
Option in the Inland Region (2004$)
Species Group
Small Gamed
Trout
Walleye/Pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)
0.3
0.0e
0.7
1.8
13.7
14.1
30.5
30.5
30.5
Value per Fish"
Low
$1.19
$1.22
$1.85
$4.45
$0.48
$1.05
Mean
$4.51
$2.38
$3.45
$7.59
$0.89
$1.88
High
$16.82
$4.62
$6.51
$12.96
$1.63
$3.36
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Low
$0.3
0.0f
$1.3
$7.9
$6.6
$14.8
$30.8
$25.7
$20.4
Mean
$1.2
0.0f
$2.4
$13.4
$12.2
$26.5
$55.7
$46.4
$36.8
High
$4.5
0.0f
$4.5
$22.9
$22.3
$47.5
$101.7
$84.7
$67.2
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d The small game species group includes sturgeon. However, applying the use value for small game to sturgeon may
understate the value of this species. A marine fishing valuation study indicates that California anglers are willing to
pay $61.43 to catch a sturgeon in saltwater (U.S. EPA, 2004a). However, sturgeon in freshwater are often landlocked
and may not be as large as sturgeon found in saltwater, and therefore not as valuable.
e Denotes a nonzero value less than 50 fish.
f Denotes a nonzero value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. G4-8
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix G4
Table G4-7: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere"
Option in the Inland Region (2004$)
Species Group
Small Gamed
Trout
Walleye/Pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)
0.3
0.0e
2.7
2.7
20.5
22.0
48.3
48.3
48.3
Value per Fish"
Low
$1.19
$1.22
$1.85
$4.45
$0.48
$1.05
Mean
$4.51
$2.38
$3.45
$7.59
$0.89
$1.88
High
$16.82
$4.62
$6.51
$12.96
$1.63
$3.36
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Low
$0.3
0.0f
$5.1
$12.1
$9.8
$23.1
$50.4
$42.0
$33.4
Mean
$1.3
0.0f
$9.5
$20.6
$18.2
$41.4
$91.0
$75.9
$60.2
High
$4.8
0.0f
$17.9
$35.3
$33.4
$74.0
$165.4
$137.8
$109.4
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d The small game species group includes sturgeon. However, applying the use value for small game to sturgeon may
understate the value of this species. A marine fishing valuation study indicates that California anglers are willing to
pay $61.43 to catch a sturgeon in saltwater (U.S. EPA, 2004a). However, sturgeon in freshwater are often landlocked
and may not be as large as sturgeon found in saltwater, and therefore not as valuable.
e Denotes a nonzero value less than 50 fish.
f Denotes a nonzero value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. G4-9
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix G4
Table G4-8: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere"
Option in the Inland Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Species Group
Small Gamed
Trout
Walleye/Pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)
1.3
0.0e
0.5
7.3
57.6
58.1
124.7
124.7
124.7
Low
$1.19
$1.22
$1.85
$4.45
$0.48
$1.05
Mean
$4.51
$2.38
$3.45
$7.59
$0.89
$1.88
High
$16.82
$4.62
$6.51
$12.96
$1.63
$3.36
Low
$1.5
0.0.f
$0.9
$32.6
$27.6
$60.9
$123.5
$105.2
$85.9
Mean
$5.8
0.0f
$1.8
$55.5
$51.2
$109.1
$223.4
$190.4
$155.4
High
$21.8
0.0f
$3.3
$94.8
$93.8
$195.2
$408.9
$348.4
$284.3
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d The small game species group includes sturgeon. However, applying the use value for small game to sturgeon may
understate the value of this species. A marine fishing valuation study indicates that California anglers are willing to
pay $61.43 to catch a sturgeon in saltwater (U.S. EPA, 2004a). However, sturgeon in freshwater are often landlocked
and may not be as large as sturgeon found in saltwater, and therefore not as valuable.
e Denotes a nonzero value less than 50 fish.
f Denotes a nonzero value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. G4-10
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix G4
Table G4-9: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I&E Everywhere"
Option in the Inland Region (2004$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands) b'c
Species Group
Small Gamed
Trout
Walleye/Pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)
1.4
0.0e
14.8
13.9
104.5
112.7
247.3
247.3
247.3
Low
$1.19
$1.22
$1.85
$4.45
$0.48
$1.05
Mean
$4.51
$2.38
$3.45
$7.59
$0.89
$1.88
High
$16.82
$4.62
$6.51
$12.96
$1.63
$3.36
Low
$1.7
0.0.f
$27.3
$61.9
$50.1
$118.1
$259.1
$221.1
$180.8
Mean
$6.4
0.0f
$51.0
$105.6
$93.0
$211.7
$467.6
$399.1
$326.4
High
$23.7
0.0f
$96.0
$180.3
$170.3
$378.8
$849.2
$724.7
$592.7
a. Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
°. Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d The small game species group includes sturgeon. However, applying the use value for small game to sturgeon may
understate the value of this species. A marine fishing valuation study indicates that California anglers are willing to
pay $61.43 to catch a sturgeon in saltwater (U.S. EPA, 2004a). However, sturgeon in freshwater are often landlocked
and may not be as large as sturgeon found in saltwater, and therefore not as valuable.
e Denotes a nonzero value less than 50 fish.
f Denotes a nonzero value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. G4-11
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix G4
G4-2 Comparison of Recreational Fishing Benefits by Option
Table G4-10 compares the recreational fishing benefits of some supplemental options.
Table G4-10: Annual Recreational Benefits of the Supplemental Options in the Inland Region
Policy Option
Annual Reduction
in Recreational Fishing
Losses from I&E
(thousands of fish)
Undiscounted Recreational Fishing Benefits
(thousands; 2004$)a
Low
Mean
High
Electric Generators 2-50 MGD
I-only Everywhere
I&E like Phase II
I&E Everywhere
3.6
4.2
8.4
$3.6
$4.2
$8.9
$6.5
$7.6
$16.0
$11.9
$13.8
$29.1
Manufacturers 2-50 MGD
I-only Everywhere
I&E like Phase II
I&E Everywhere
25.5
30.5
48.3
$25.3
$30.8
$50.4
$45.7
$55.7
$91.0
$83.7
$101.7
$165.4
Manufacturers 50+ MGD
I-only Everywhere
I&E Everywhere
a. These benefit estimates were calculated using
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
124.7
247.3
the meta-analysis
$123.5
$259.1
approach discussed
$223.4
$467.6
in Chapter A5
$408.9
$849.2
and Chapter B4.
App. G4-12
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G5
Chapter G5: Federally Listed T&E Species
in the Inland Region
This chapter lists current federally listed threatened and endangered (T&E) fish and shellfish species in the Inland
Region. This list does not address proposed or candidate species; In addition, fish and shellfish listed as cave
species, marine mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and snails are not included in this chapter.
Table G5-1: Alabama Federally
Status Scientific Name
T
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Source:
Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi
Dromus dramas
Elliptoideus sloatianus
Epioblasma florentina walkeri ( = E. walkeri)
Epioblasma othcaloogensis
Epioblasma torulosa torulosa
Leptodea leptodon
Medionidus parvulus
Medionidus penicillatus
Pegiasfabula
Percina antesella
Pleurobema clava
Pleurobema curtum
Pleurobema pyriforme
Pristis pectinata
Quadrula fragosa
Villosa trabalis
USFWS, 2006a.
Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Gulf sturgeon
Dromedary pearlymussel: entire range except where
listed as experimental populations
Purple bankclimber mussel
Tan riffleshell mussel
Southern acornshell mussel
Tubercled blossom pearlymussel: entire range except
where listed as experimental populations
Scaleshell mussel
Moccasinshell mussel
Gulf moccasinshell mussel
Littlewing pearlymussel
Amber darter
Clubshell mussel: entire range except where listed as
experimental populations
Black clubshell mussel
Oval pigtoe mussel
Smalltooth sawfish
Winged mapleleaf mussel: entire range except where
listed as experimental populations
Cumberland bean pearlymussel: entire range except
where listed as experimental populations
G5-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G5
Table G5-2: Arizona
Status Scientific Name
E
T
E
T
E
E
T
E
E
E
T
T
T
E
T
E
Source:
Gila elegans
Cyprinella formosa
Poeciliopsis occidentalis
Oncorhynchus apache
Cyprinodon macularius
Gila cypha
Gila ditaenia
Gila intermedia
Gilapurpurea
Gila seminuda ( = robusta)
Ictalurus pricei
Lepidomeda vittata
Medafulgida
Oncorhynchus gilae
Tiaroga cobitis
Xyrauchen texanus
USFWS, 2006a.
Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Bonytail chub
Beautiful shiner
Gila topminnow (including Yaqui) (U.S. only)
Apache trout
Desert pupfish
Humpback chub
Sonora chub
Gila chub
Yaqui chub
Virgin River chub
Yaqui catfish
Little Colorado spinedace
Spikedace
Gila trout
Loach minnow
Razorback sucker
Table G5-3: Arkansas Federally
Status Scientific Name
E
E
E
T
E
E
T
T
E
E
Source:
Arkansia wheeleri
Epioblasma florentina curtisii
Lampsilis abrupta
Lampsilis powelli
Lampsilis streckeri
Leptodea leptodon
Notropis girardi
Percina pantherina
Potamilus capax
Scaphirhynchus albus
USFWS, 2006a.
Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Ouachita rock pocketbook mussel
Curtis pearlymussel
Pink mucket pearlymussel
Arkansas fatmucket mussel
Speckled pocketbook mussel
Scaleshell mussel
Arkansas River shiner (Arkansas River basin)
Leopard darter
Fat pocketbook mussel
Pallid sturgeon
G5-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G5
Table G5-4: California Federally
Status Scientific Name
E
E
T
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
T
E
T
E
T
T
T
T
E
T
T
E
T
T
T
E
E
T
E
E
E
Source:
Branchinecta conservatio
Branchinecta longiantenna
Branchinecta lynchi
Branchinecta sandiegonensis
Catostomus microps
Catostomus santaanae
Chasmistes brevirostris
Cyprinodon macularius
Cyprinodon radiosus
Deltistes luxatus
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni
Gila bicolor mohavensis
Gila bicolor snyderi
Gila elegans
Haliotis sorenseni
Hypomesus transpacificus
Lepidurus packardi
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) kisutch
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) kisutch
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) mykiss
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) mykiss
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) mykiss
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) mykiss
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) mykiss
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus aguabonita whitei
Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi
Oncorhynchus clarki seleniris
Pacifastacus fortis
Ptychocheilus lucius
Salvelinus confluentus
Streptocephalus woottoni
Syncaris pacifica
Xyrauchen texanus
USFWS, 2006a.
Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Conservancy fairy shrimp
Longhorn fairy shrimp
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
San Diego fairy shrimp
Modoc sucker
Santa Ana sucker (3 California river basins)
Shortnose sucker
Desert pupfish
Owens pupfish
Lost River sucker
Tidewater goby
Unarmored threespine stickleback
Mohave tui chub
Owens tui chub
Bonytail chub
White abalone
Delta smelt
Vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Coho salmon (Oregon and California populations)
Coho salmon (central California coast)
Steelhead (Central Valley, California)
Steelhead (central California coast)
Steelhead (northern California)
Steelhead (south central California coast)
Steelhead (southern California coast)
Chinook salmon (California Central Valley) (spring run)
Chinook salmon (California coastal)
Chinook salmon (Sacramento River) (winter run)
Little Kern golden trout
Lahontan cutthroat trout
Paiute cutthroat trout
Shasta crayfish
Pikeminnow ( = squawfish), Colorado except Salt and
Verde River drainages, AZ
Bull trout (U.S., conterminous, lower 48 states)
Riverside fairy shrimp
California freshwater shrimp
Razorback sucker
G5-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G5
Table G5-5: Colorado Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
Gila cypha
Humpback chub
Gila elegans
Bonytail chub
Ptychocheilus lucius
Pikeminnow ( = squawfish), Colorado except Salt and
Verde R. drainages, AZ
Xyrauchen texanus
Razorback sucker
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Table G5-6: Connecticut Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
Acipenser brevirostrum
Shortnose sturgeon
Alasmidonta heterodon
Dwarf wedgemussel
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Table G5-7: Delaware Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
Acipenser brevirostrum
Shortnose sturgeon
Alasmidonta heterodon
Dwarf wedgemussel
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Table G5-8: District of Columbia Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
Alasmidonta heterodon
Dwarf wedgemussel
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Status
E
T
E
T
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
Table G5-9: Florida
Scientific Name
Acipenser brevirostrum
Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi
Amblema neislerii
Elliptic chipolaensis
Elliptoideus sloatianus
Etheostoma okaloosae
Lampsilis subangulata
Medionidus penicillatus
Medionidus simpsonianus
Pleurobema pyriforme
Pristis pectinata
Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Shortnose sturgeon
Gulf sturgeon
Fat three-ridge mussel
Chipola slabshell mussel
Purple bankclimber mussel
Okaloosa darter
Shinyrayed pocketbook mussel
Gulf moccasinshell
Ochlockonee moccasinshell
Oval pigtoe mussel
Smalltooth sawfish
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
G5-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G5
Table G5-10: Georgia
Status Scientific Name
T
T
E
E
T
E
T
E
E
E
T
E
T
T
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
T
E
E
E
E
Source:
Elliptoideus sloatianus
Medionidus acutissimus
Pleurobema decisum
Acipenser brevirostrum
Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi
Amblema neislerii
Cyprinella caerulea
Epioblasma capsaeformis
Epioblasma metastriata
Epioblasma othcaloogensis
Erimonax monachus
Etheostoma etowahae
Etheostoma scotti
Lampsilis altilis
Lampsilis subangulata
Medionidus parvulus
Medionidus penicillatus
Medionidus simpsonianus
Percina antesella
Percina aurolineata
Percina jenkinsi
Percina tanasi
Pleurobema georgianum
Pleurobema perovatum
Pleurobema pyriforme
Ptychobranchus greenii
USFWS, 2006a.
Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Purple bankclimber mussel
Alabama moccasinshell
Southern clubshell mussel
Shortnose sturgeon
Gulf sturgeon
Fat three-ridge mussel
Blue shiner
Oyster mussel: entire range except where listed as
experimental populations
Upland combshell mussel
Southern acornshell mussel
Spotfin chub: entire range except where listed as
experimental populations
Etowah darter
Cherokee darter
Finelined pocketbook mussel
Shinyrayed pocketbook mussel
Coosa moccasinshell
Gulf moccasinshell
Ochlockonee moccasinshell
Amber darter
Goldline darter
Conasauga logperch
Snail darter
Southern pigtoe mussel
Ovate clubshell mussel
Oval pigtoe mussel
Triangular kidneyshell mussel
Table G5-11: Idaho Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) nerka
Sockeye salmon (U.S., Snake River, Idaho stock
wherever found)
Acipenser transmontanus
White sturgeon (U.S.: Idaho, Montana. Canada: B.C.
Kootenai River system)
Oncorhynchus( = Salmo) mykiss
Steelhead (Snake River basin)
T
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) tshawytscha
Chinook salmon (Snake River) (fall run)
T
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) tshawytscha
Chinook salmon (Snake River) (spring/summer run)
T
Salvelinus ( = Salmo) confluentus
Bull trout (U.S., conterminous, lower 48 states)
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
G5-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G5
Table G5-12: Illinois Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
Epioblasma torulosa torulosa
Tubercled-blossom pearlymussel: entire range, except
where listed as experimental populations
Epioblasma obliquata obliquata
Purple catspaw pearlymussel ( = catspaw): entire range,
except where listed as experimental populations
Quadrula fragosa
Winged mapleleaf mussel: entire range, except where
listed as experimental populations
Hemistena lata
Cracking pearlymussel: entire range, except where listed
as experimental populations
Epioblasma torulosa rangiana
Northern riffleshell mussel
Obovaria retusa
Ring pink mussel
Plethobasus cicatricosus
White wartyback pearlymussel
Leptodea leptodon
Scaleshell mussel
Cyprogenia stegaria ( = C. irrorata)
Fanshell mussel
Lampsilis higginsii
Higgins eye pearlymussel
Lampsilis orbiculata ( = L. abrupta)
Pink mucket pearlymussel
Plethobasus cooperianus ( = P. striatus)
Orange-footed pimpleback pearlymussel
Pleurobema clava
Clubshell mussel: entire range, except where listed as
experimental populations
Potamilus capax
Fat pocketbook mussel
Scaphirhynchus albus
Pallid sturgeon
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Table G5-13: Indiana Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
Cyprogenia stegaria ( = C. irrorata)
Fanshell mussel
Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua
White catspaw pearlymussel
Epioblasma torulosa rangiana
Northern riffleshell mussel
Pleurobema clava
Clubshell mussel: entire range, except where listed as
experimental populations
Pleurobema plenum
Rough pigtoe mussel
Epioblasma obliquata obliquata
Purple catspaw pearlymussel (= catspaw): entire range,
except where listed as experimental populations
Quadrula fragosa
Winged mapleleaf mussel: entire range, except where
listed as experimental populations
Lampsilis orbiculata ( = L. abrupta)
Pink mucket pearlymussel
Leptodea leptodon
Scaleshell mussel
Hemistena lata
Cracking pearlymussel: entire range, except where listed
as experimental populations
Plethobasus cooperianus ( = P. striatus)
Orange-footed pimpleback pearlymussel
Obovaria retusa
Ring pink mussel
Plethobasus cicatricosus
White wartyback pearlymussel
Potamilus capax
Fat pocketbook mussel
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
G5-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G5
Table G5-14: Iowa Federally
Status Scientific Name
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Source:
Lampsilis higginsii
Potamilus capax
Plethobasus cooperianus ( = P. striatus)
Leptodea leptodon
Quadrula fragosa
Notropis topeka
Scaphirhynchus albus
USFWS, 2006a.
Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Higgins eye pearlymussel
Fat pocketbook mussel
Orange-footed pimpleback pearlymussel
Scaleshell mussel
Winged mapleleaf mussel: entire range, except where
listed as experimental populations
Topeka shiner
Pallid sturgeon
Table G5-15: Kansas Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
T
Notropis girardi
Arkansas River shiner (Arkansas River basin)
Notropis topeka ( = tristis)
Topeka shiner
T
Noturus placidus
Neosho madtom
Scaphirhynchus albus
Pallid sturgeon
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Table G5-16: Kentucky Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
E
E
E
Scientific Name Common Name
Alasmidonta atropurpurea Cumberland elktoe mussel
Cyprogenia stegaria Fanshell mussel
Dromus dramas Dromedary pearlymussel: entire range except where
listed as experimental populations
Epioblasma brevidens
Cumberlandian combshell mussel: entire range except
where listed as experimental populations
E Epioblasma capsaeformis
E Epioblasma florentina walkeri ( = E. walkeri)
E Epioblasma obliquata obliquata
E Epioblasma torulosa rangiana
E Etheostoma chienense
E Hemistena lata
E Lampsilis abrupta
E Leptodea leptodon
E Notropis albizonatus
E Obovaria retusa
E Pegiasfabula
Oyster mussel: entire range except where listed as
experimental populations
Tan riffleshell mussel
Catspaw ( = purple cat's paw pearlymussel): entire
except where listed as experimental populations
Riffleshell, northern
Darter, relict
Pearlymussel, cracking: entire range except where
as experimental populations
Pink mucket pearlymussel
Scaleshell mussel
Palezone shiner
Ring pink mussel
Littlewing pearlymussel
range
listed
G5-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G5
Table G5-16: Kentucky Federally
Status Scientific Name
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Source:
Phoxinus cumberlandensis
Plethobasus cicatricosus
Plethobasus cooperianus
Pleurobema clava
Pleurobema plenum
Potamilus capax
Quadrula fragosa
Scaphirhynchus albus
Villosa trabalis
USFWS, 2006a.
Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Blackside dace
White wartyback pearlymussel
Orangefoot pimpleback pearlymussel
Clubshell mussel: entire range except where
experimental populations
Rough pigtoe mussel
Fat pocketbook mussel
listed as
Winged mapleleaf mussel: entire range except where
listed as experimental populations
Pallid sturgeon
Cumberland bean pearlymussel: entire range
where listed as experimental populations
except
Table G5-17: Louisiana Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi
Gulf sturgeon
Lampsilis abrupta
Pink mucket pearlymussel
Margaritifera hembeli
Louisiana pearlshell mussel
Potamilus inflatus
Alabama heelsplitter ( = inflated) mussel
Pristis pectinata
Smalltooth sawfish
Scaphirhynchus albus
Pallid sturgeon
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Table G5-18: Maine Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
Acipenser brevirostrum
Shortnose sturgeon
Salmo salar
Atlantic salmon (Gulf of Maine Atlantic salmon DPS)
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Table G5-19:
Maryland Federally
Status Scientific Name
E
E
E
Source:
Acipenser brevirostrum
Alasmidonta heterodon
Etheostoma sellare
USFWS, 2006a.
Listed T&E Fish and
Shellfish
Common Name
Shortnose sturgeon
Dwarf wedgemussel
Maryland darter
G5-8
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G5
Table G5-20: Massachusetts Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
Acipenser brevirostrum
Shortnose sturgeon
Alasmidonta heterodon
Dwarf wedgemussel
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Table G5-21: Michigan Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
Epioblasma torulosa rangiana
Northern riffleshell mussel
Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua
White catspaw pearlymussel
Pleurobema clava
Clubshell mussel: entire range, except where listed as
experimental populations
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Table G5-22: Minnesota Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
Leptodea leptodon
Scaleshell mussel
Lampsilis higginsii
Higgins eye pearlymussel
Notropis topeka
Topeka shiner
Quadrula fragosa
Winged mapleleaf mussel
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Status
T
T
E
E
T
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
Table G5-23: Mississippi
Scientific Name
Lampsilis perovalis
Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi
Epioblasma brevidens
Epioblasma penita
Etheostoma rubrum
Medionidus acutissimus
Pleurobema curtum
Pleurobema decisum
Pleurobema marshalli
Pleurobema perovatum
Pleurobema taitianum
Potamilus capax
Potamilus inflatus
Pristis pectinata
Quadrula stapes
Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Orangenacre mucket mussel
Gulf sturgeon
Cumberlandian combshell mussel: entire range except
where listed as experimental populations
Southern combshell mussel
Bayou darter
Alabama moccasinshell
Black clubshell mussel
Southern clubshell mussel
Flat pigtoe mussel
Ovate clubshell mussel
Heavy pigtoe mussel
Fat pocketbook mussel
Alabama heelsplitter ( = inflated) mussel
Smalltooth sawfish
Stirrupshell mussel
G5-9
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G5
Table G5-23: Mississippi Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
Scaphirhynchus albus
Pallid sturgeon
Scaphirhynchus suttkusi
Alabama sturgeon
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Table G5-24: Missouri Federally
Status Scientific Name
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
Source:
Epioblasma florentina curtisi
Ethiostoma nianguae
Lampsilis higginsii
Lampsilis orbiculata ( = L. abrupta)
Leptodea leptodon
Quadrula fragosa
Notropis topeka
No turns placidus
Potamilus capax
Scaphirhynchus albus
USFWS, 2006a.
Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Curtis' pearlymussel
Niangua darter
Higgins eye pearlymussel
Pink mucket pearlymussel
Scaleshell mussel
Winged mapleleaf mussel: entire range except where
listed as experimental populations
Topeka shiner
Neosho madtom
Fat pocketbook mussel
Pallid sturgeon
Table G5-25: Montana Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
Acipenser transmontanus
White sturgeon: U.S.A. (ID, MT), Canada (B.C.),
Kootenai River system
Salvelinus confluentus
Bull trout: U.S.A. (conterminous, lower 48 states)
Scaphirhynchus albus
Sturgeon, pallid
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Status
E
E
E
E
Table G5-26: Nebraska
Scientific Name
Lampsilis higginsii
Notropis topeka ( = tristis)
Quadrula fragosa
Scaphirhynchus albus
Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Higgins eye pearlymussel
Topeka shiner
Winged mapleleaf mussel: entire range except where
listed as experimental populations
Pallid sturgeon
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
G5-10
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G5
Table G5-27: Nevada
Status Scientific Name
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
T
E
T
E
E
E
E
T
E
Source:
Chasmistes cujus
Crenichthys baileyi baileyi
Crenichthys baileyi grandis
Crenichthys nevadae
Cyprinodon diabolis
Cyprinodon nevadensis mionectes
Cyprinodon nevadensis pectoralis
Empetrichthys latos
Eremichthys acros
Gila elegans
Gila robustajordani
Gila seminuda ( = robusta)
Lepidomeda albivallis
Lepidomeda mollispinis pratensis
Moapa coriacea
Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi
Ptychocheilus lucius
Rhinichthys osculus lethoporus
Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis
Rhinichthys osculus oligoporus
Salvelinus confluentus
Xyrauchen texanus
USFWS, 2006a.
Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Cui-ui
White River springfish
Hiko White River springfish
Railroad Valley springfish
Devil's Hole pupfish
Ash Meadows Amargosa pupfish
Warm Springs pupfish
Pahrump poolfish
Deset dace
Bonytail chub
Pahranagat roundtail chub
Virgin River chub
White River spinedace
Big Spring spinedace
Moapa dace
Lahontan cutthroat trout
Pikeminnow ( = squawfish), Colorado except Salt and
Verde River drainages, AZ
Independence Valley speckled dace
Ash Meadows speckled dace
Clover Valley speckled dace
Bull trout (U.S., conterminous, lower 48 states)
Razorback sucker
Table G5-28: New Hampshire Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
Alasmidonta heterodon
Dwarf wedgemussel
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Table G5-29: New Jersey Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
Acipenser brevirostrum
Shortnose sturgeon
Alasmidonta heterodon
Dwarf wedgemussel
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
G5-11
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G5
Table G5-30: New Mexico
Status Scientific Name
E
T
E
T
E
T
T
T
E
E
E
T
E
Source:
Gila intermedia
Cyprinella formosa
Gambusia nobilis
Gila nigrescens
Hybognathus amarus
Medafulgida
Notropis girardi
Notropis simus pecosensis
Oncorhynchus gilae
Poeciliopsis occidentalis
Ptychocheilus lucius
Tiaroga cobitis
Xyrauchen texanus
USFWS, 2006a.
Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Gila chub
Beautiful shiner
Pecos gambusia
Chihuahua chub
Rio Grande silvery minnow
Spikedace
Arkansas River shiner (Arkansas River basin)
Pecos bluntnose shiner
Gila trout
Gila topminnow (including Yaqui) (U.S. only)
Colorado pikeminnow ( = squawfish), except Salt and
Verde River drainages
Loach minnow
Razorback sucker
Table G5-31: New York Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Alasmidonta heterodon
Dwarf wedgemussel
Acipenser brevirostrum
Shortnose sturgeon
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Table G5-32: North Carolina Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status Scientific Name
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
T
E
E
E
Source:
Acipenser brevirostrum
Alasmidonta raveneliana
Elliptio steinstansana
Epioblasma capsaeformis
Epioblasma florentina walkeri ( = E. walkeri)
Erimonax monachus
Lasmigona decorata
Menidia extensa
Notropis mekistocholas
Pegiasfabula
Pristis pectinata
USFWS, 2006a.
Common Name
Shortnose sturgeon
Appalachian elktoe mussel
Tar River spinymussel
Oyster mussel: entire range except where listed as
experimental populations
Tan riffleshell mussel
Spotfin chub: entire range except where listed as
experimental populations
Carolina heelsplitter mussel
Waccamaw silverside
Cape Fear shiner
Littlewing pearlymussel
Smalltooth sawfish
G5-12
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G5
Table G5-33: North Dakota Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
Scaphirhynchus albus
Pallid sturgeon
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Status
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Table G5-34: Ohio Federally
Scientific Name
Cyprogenia stegaria ( = C. irrorata)
Epioblasma obliquata obliquata
Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua
Epioblasma torulosa rangiana
Lampsilis orbiculata ( = L. abrupta)
Noturus trautmani
Quadrula fragosa
Leptodea leptodon
Hemistena lota
Plethobasus cooperianus ( = P. striatus)
Potamilus capax
Obovaria retusa
Pleurobema clava
Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Fanshell mussel
Purple catspaw pearlymussel
White catspaw pearlymussel
Northern riffleshell mussel
Pink mucket pearlymussel
Scioto madtom
Winged mapleleaf mussel: entire range except where
listed as experimental populations
Scaleshell mussel: entire range except where listed
experimental populations
Cracking pearlymussel: entire range, except where
as experimental populations
Orange-footed pimpleback pearlymussel
Fat pocketbook mussel
Ring pink mussel
Clubshell mussel
as
listed
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Status
T
T
T
E
E
T
E
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Table G5-35: Oregon
Scientific Name
Salvelinus confluentus
Branchinecta lynchi
Catostomus warnerensis
Chasmistes brevirostris
Deltistes luxatus
Gila bicolor spp.
Gila boraxobius
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) keta
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) kisutch
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) kisutch
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) mykiss
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) mykiss
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) mykiss
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) mykiss
Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Bull trout (U.S., conterminous, lower 48 states)
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Warner sucker
Shortnose sucker
Lost River sucker
Hutton tui Hutton chub
Borax Lake chub
Chum salmon (Columbia River)
Coho salmon (Oregon, California pop.)
Coho salmon (lower Columbia River)
Steelhead (Snake River basin)
Steelhead (middle Columbia River)
Steelhead (upper Willamette River)
Steelhead (lower Columbia River)
G5-13
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G5
Table G5-35: Oregon Federally
Status Scientific Name
E
T
T
T
T
T
E
T
Source:
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) nerka
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi
Oregonichthys crameri
Rhinichthys osculus spp.
USFWS, 2006a.
Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Sockeye salmon (U.S., Snake River, ID stock wherever
found)
Chinook salmon (Snake River) (fall run)
Chinook salmon (lower Columbia River)
Chinook salmon (Snake River) (spring/summer run)
Chinook salmon (upper Willamette River)
Lahontan cutthroat trout
Oregon chub
Foskett dace ( = speckled Foskett)
Table G5-36: Pennsylvania Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status Scientific Name
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Source:
Pleurobema clava
Cyprogenia stegaria
Lampsilis abrupta
Pleurobema plenum
Plethobasus cooperianus
Epioblasma torulosa rangiana
Obovaria retusa
Alasmidonta heterodon
USFWS, 2006a.
Common Name
Clubshell mussel: entire range except where listed as
experimental populations
Fanshell mussel
Pink mucket pearlymussel
Rough pigtoe pearlymussel
Orange-foot pimpleback pearlymussel
Northern riffleshell mussel
Ring pink mussel
Dwarf wedgemussel
Status
E
E
E
Table G5-37: South Carolina
Scientific Name
Acipenser brevirostrum
Lasmigona decorata
Pristis pectinata
Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Shortnose sturgeon
Carolina heelsplitter mussel
Smalltooth sawfish
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Table G5-38: South Dakota Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status Scientific Name
E
E
E
Source:
Leptodea leptodon
Notropis topeka
Scaphirhynchus albus
USFWS, 2006a.
Scaleshell mussel
Topeka shiner
Pallid sturgeon
Common Name
G5-14
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G5
Status
T
T
E
E
E
T
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
Table G5-39: Tennessee Federally
Scientific Name
Cyprinella ( = Hybopsis) cahni
Cyprinella ( = Notropis) caerulea
( = caemleus)
Etheostoma. ( = Catonotus) percnurum
Etheostoma ( = Deration) spp.
Etheostoma ( = Nothonotus) wapiti
Erimystax ( = Hybopsis) cahni
Etheostoma boschungi
Hemistena ( = Lastena) lata
Lampsilis virescens
Lampsilis abrupta ( = orbiculata)
Epioblasma othcaloogensis
Epioblasma torulosa gubernaculum
Epioblasma turgidula
Epioblasma florentina florentina
Epioblasma obliquata obliquata
Epioblasma brevidens
Epioblasma metastriata
Percina aurolineata
Alasmidonta raveneliana
Alasmidonta atropurpurea
Cyprogenia stegaria
Epioblasma capsaeformis
Leptodea leptodon
Conradilla caelata
Dromus dramas
Pleurobema gibberum
Epioblasma florentina walker ( = E. walkeri)
Fusconaia cor
Medionidus parvulus
Notropis albizonatus (cf. N. procne)
Noturus baileyi
Noturus flavipinnis
Noturus stanauli
Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Spotfin chub
Blue shiner
Duskytail darter
Bluemask (= jewel) darter
Boulder darter
Slender chub
Slackwater darter
Cracking pearlymussel: entire range except where listed
as experimental populations
Alabama lampmussel: entire range except where listed as
experimental populations
Pink mucket pearlymussel
Southern acornshell mussel
Green blossom pearlymussel
Turgid blossom pearlymussel: entire range except where
listed as experimental populations
Yellow blossom pearlymussel: entire range except where
listed as experimental populations
Purple catspaw pearlymussel: entire range except where
listed as experimental populations
Cumberlandian combshell mussel: entire range except
where listed as experimental populations
Upland combshell mussel
Goldline darter
Appalachian elktoe mussel
Cumberland elktoe mussel
Fanshell mussel
Oyster mussel: entire range except where listed as
experimental populations
Scaleshell mussel
Birdwing pearlymussel: entire range except where listed
as experimental populations
Dromedary pearlymussel: entire range except where
listed as experimental populations
Cumberland pigtoe mussel
Tan riffleshell mussel
Shiny pigtoe mussel: entire range except where listed as
experimental populations
Coosa moccasinshell
Palezone shiner
Smoky madtom
Yellowfin madtom
Pygmy madtom
G5-15
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G5
Status
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Table G5-39: Tennessee Federally
Scientific Name
Obovaria retusa
Orconectes shoupi
Plethobasus cooperianus
Pleurobema decisum
Pleurobema georgianum
Pleurobema gibberum
Percinajenkinsi
Pleurobema perovatum
Pleurobema plenum
Percina tanasi
Pegiasfabula
Percina antesella
Phoxinus cumberlandensis
Plethobasus cicatricosus
Pleurobema clava
Ptychobranchus greeni
Quadrula fragosa
Quadrula sparsa
Quadrula cylindrica strigillata
Quadrula intermedia
Scaphirhynchus albus
Toxolasma ( = Carunculina) cylindrella
Villas a ( = Micromya) trabalis
Villosa perpurpurea
Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Ring pink mussel
Nashville crayfish
Orange-foot pimpleback pearlymussel
Southern clubshell mussel
Southern pigtoe mussel
Cumberland pigtoe mussel
Conasauga ( = Reticulate) logperch
Ovate clubshell
Rough pigtoe pearlymussel
Snail darter
Littlewing pearlymussel
Amber darter
Blackside dace
White wartyback pearlymussel
Clubshell mussel: entire range except where listed as
experimental populations
Triangular kidneyshell mussel
Winged mapleleaf mussel: entire range except where
listed as experimental populations
Appalachian monkeyface pearlymussel
Rough rabbitsfoot mussel
Cumberland monkeyface pearlymussel: entire range
except where listed as experimental populations
Pallid sturgeon
Pale lilliput pearlymussel
Cumberland bean pearlymussel: entire range except
where listed as experimental populations
Purple bean mussel
Sources: Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, 2006; USFWS, 2006a.
G5-16
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G5
Table G5-40: Texas
Status Scientific Name
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
Source:
Cyprinodon bovinus
Cyprinodon elegans
Dionda diaboli
Etheostoma fonticola
Gambusia gaigei
Gambusia georgei
Gambusia heterochir
Gambusia nobilis
Hybognathus amarus
Notropis girardi
Pristis pectinata
USFWS, 2006a.
Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Leon Springs pupfish
Comanche Springs pupfish
Devils River minnow
Fountain darter
Big Bend gambusia
San Marcos gambusia
Clear Creek gambusia
Pecos gambusia
Rio Grande silvery minnow
Arkansas River shiner (Arkansas River basin)
Smalltooth sawfish
Table G5-41: Utah Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
Chasmistes liorus
June sucker
Gila cypha
Humpback chub
Gila elegans
Bonytail chub
Gila seminuda ( = robusta)
Virgin River chub
T
Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi
Lahontan cutthroat trout
Plagopterus argentissimus
Woundfin
Ptychocheilus lucius
Colorado pikeminnow ( = squawfish), except Salt and
Verde River drainages
Xyrauchen texanus
Razorback sucker
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
Table G5-42: Vermont Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
Alasmidonta heterodon
Dwarf wedgemussel
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
G5-17
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G5
Table G5-43: Virginia Federally
Status Scientific Name
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Source:
Acipenser brevirostrum
Alasmidonta heterodon
Conradilla caelata
Cyprinella monacha
Cyprogenia stegaria
Dromus dramas
Epioblasma brevidens
Epioblasma capsaeformis
Epioblasma florentina walker ( = E. walkeri)
Erimystax cahni
Etheostoma percnurum
Fusconaia cor
Fusconaia cuneolus
Hemistena lata
Noturus flavipinnis
Pegiasfabula
Percina rex
Pleurobema collina
Pleurobema plenum
Quadrula cylindrica strigillata
Quadrula intermedia
Quadrula sparsa
Villosa trabalis
Epioblasma torulosa gubernaculum
Villosa perpurpurea
USFWS, 2006a.
Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Shortnose sturgeon
Dwarf wedgemussel
Birdwing pearlymussel: entire range except where listed
as experimental populations
Spotfin chub
Fanshell mussel
Dromedary pearlymussel: entire range except where
listed as experimental populations
Cumberlandian combshell mussel: entire range except
where listed as experimental populations
Oyster mussel: entire range except where listed as
experimental populations
Tan riffleshell mussel
Slender chub
Duskytail darter
Shiny pigtoe mussel: entire range except where listed as
experimental populations
Fine-rayed pigtoe mussel: entire range except where
listed as experimental populations
Cracking pearlymussel: entire range except where listed
as experimental populations
Yellowfin madtom
Little-wing pearlymussel
Roanoke logperch
James spinymussel
Rough pigtoe mussel
Rough rabbitsfoot mussel
Cumberland monkeyface pearlymussel: entire range
except where listed as experimental populations
Appalachian monkeyface pearlymussel
Cumberland bean pearlymussel: entire range except
where listed as experimental populations
Green blossom pearlymussel: entire range except where
listed as experimental populations
Purple bean mussel
G5-18
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G5
Table G5-44: Washington Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status Scientific Name
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
E
Source:
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) keta
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) keta
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) mykiss
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) mykiss
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) mykiss
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) mykiss
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) nerka
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) kisutch
Oncorhynchus ( = Salmo) tshawytscha
USFWS, 2006a.
Common Name
Chum salmon (Hood Canal) (summer run)
Chum salmon (Columbia River)
Steelhead (lower Columbia River)
Steelhead (middle Columbia River)
Steelhead (Snake River basin)
Steelhead (upper Columbia River basin)
Sockeye salmon (Ozette Lake)
Chinook salmon (lower Columbia River)
Chinook salmon (Puget Sound)
Chinook salmon (Snake River) (fall run)
Chinook salmon (Snake River) (spring/summer run)
Coho salmon (lower Columbia River)
Chinook salmon (upper Columbia River) (spring run)
Table G5-45: West Virginia Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status Scientific Name
E
E
E
E
E
E
Source:
Cyprogenia stegaria ( = irrorata)
Lampsilis abrupta ( = orbiculata)
Pleurobema ( = Canthyria) collina
Epioblasma torulosa rangiana
Obovaria retusa
Pleurobema clava
USFWS, 2006a.
Common Name
Fanshell mussel
Pink mucket pearlymussel
James spiny mussel
Northern riffleshell mussel
Ring pink mussel
Clubshell mussel
Table G5-46: Wisconsin
Status Scientific Name
E
E
E
Sources:
Lampsilis higginsii
Leptodea leptodon
Quadrula fragosa
USFWS, 2006a,b.
Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Higgins eye pearlymussel
Scaleshell mussel
Winged mapleleaf mussel
G5-19
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region Chapter G5
Table G5-47: Wyoming federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status Scientific Name Common Name
E Gila cypha Humpback chub
E Gila elegans Bonytail chub
E Ptychocheilus lucius Colorado pikeminnow (= squawfish)
E Rhinichthys osculus ihermalis Kendall Warm Springs dace
E Xyrauchen texanus Razorback sucker
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
G5-20
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment
Part H: South Atlantic
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic Chapter HI
Chapter HI: Background
Hl-l Facility Characteristics Hl-1
Introduction
Chapter Contents
This chapter presents an overview of the potential
Phase III existing facilities in the South Atlantic
study region and summarizes their key cooling water
and compliance characteristics. For further
discussion of the technical and compliance characteristics of potential Phase III existing facilities, refer to the
Economic Analysis for the Final Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities and the Technical Development
Document for the Final Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2006a,c).
Hl-1 Facility Characteristics
The South Atlantic Regional Study includes one sample facility that is potentially subject to the national standards
for Phase III existing facilities. Figure Hl-1 presents a map of this manufacturing facility. Industry-wide, this one
sample facility represents four manufacturing facilities..1
1 EPA applied sample weights to the survey respondents to account for non-sampled facilities and facilities that did
not respond to the survey. For more information on EPA's 2000 Section 316(b) Industry Survey, please refer to the
Information Collection Request (U.S. EPA, 2000b).
Hl-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic
Chapter HI
Figure Hl-1: Potential Existing Phase III Facilities in the South Atlantic Regional Study"
Potential Phase III Existing Facilities (Count)
Electric Generating Facility (0)
Manufacturing Facility (1)
South Atlantic Region and Counties
0 50 100 Miles
a. The map includes locations of sample facilities only.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Hl-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic
Chapter HI
Table Hl-1 summarizes key technical and compliance characteristics for all potentially regulated Phase III
existing facilities in the South Atlantic study region for the regulatory options considered by EPA for this rule (the
"50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, and the "100 MOD for
Certain Waterbodies" option). Facilities with a design intake flow below the three applicability thresholds would
be subject to permitting based on best professional judgment and are excluded from EPA's analyses.2 Therefore,
a different number of facilities is affected under each option.
Table Hl-1 shows that four Phase III existing facilities in the South Atlantic study region would potentially be
subject to the national requirements. Under the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the most inclusive of the
regulatory options, no facilities would be subject to the national requirements for Phase III existing facilities.
Under the less inclusive "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" and "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" options, no
facilities would be subject to the nation requirements. This facility in the South Atlantic study region does not
have a recirculating system in the baseline. Data on design intake flow for the South Atlantic study facilities have
been withheld due to data confidentiality reasons.
Table Hl-1: Technical and Compliance Characteristics of Existing Phase III Facilities (sample-weighted)
Total Number of Facilities (sample-weighted)
Number of Facilities with Recirculating System in Baseline
Design Intake Flow (MGD)
Number of Facilities by Compliance Response
New larger intake structure with fine mesh and fish H&R
Fine mesh traveling screens with fish H&R
Passive fine mesh screens
None
Compliance Cost, Discounted at 3%b
Compliance Cost, Discounted at 7%b
All Potentially
Regulated
Facilities
4
-
wa
4
$0.68
$0.63
Regulatory Options
50 MGD 200 MGD 100 MGD
All All CWB
-
-
-
-
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
a. Data withheld because of confidentiality reasons.
b Annualized pre-tax compliance cost (2004$, millions).
Sources: U.S. EPA, 2000b; U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Also excluded are facilities that are estimated to be baseline closures. For additional information on EPA's
baseline closure analyses, please refer to the Economic Analysis for the Final Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III
Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2006a).
Hl-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic
Appendix HI
Appendix HI: Life History Parameter
Values Used to Evaluate I&E in the
South Atlantic Region
The tables in this appendix present the life history parameter values used by EPA to calculate age-1 equivalents
and fishery yields from impingement and entrainment (I&E) data for the South Atlantic region. Because of
differences in the number of life stages represented in the loss data, there are cases where more than one life stage
sequence was needed for a given species or species group. Alternative parameter sets were developed for this
purpose and are indicated with a number following the species or species group name (i.e., Winter flounder 1,
Winter flounder 2).
Table Hl-1: Atlantic Menhaden Life
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juveniles
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.08
5.71
2.85
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
Sources: PG&E National Energy Group,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.800
0.800
0.800
0.800
0.800
History Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
2001; andFroese andPauly, 2003.
Table Hl-2: Bay Anchovy Life History Parameters8
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery
Eggs
Larvae
Juveniles
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
1.04
7.69
1.29
1.62
1.62
1.62
a Includes bay anchovy and striped anchovy.
Sources: PG&E National Energy Group, 2001;
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
andFroese andPauly,
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000186
0.00000158
0.000481
0.00381
0.00496
0.00505
App. Hl-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic
Appendix HI
Table Hl-3: Blue Crab Life History Parameters3
Stage Name
Larvae
Juveniles
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
15.1
1.73
1.00
1.00
1.00
a. Includes lesser blue crab.
Sources: Hartman, 1993; PSE&G, 1999;
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0.000
0.48
1.00
1.00
1.00
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0.5
1
1
1
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000156
0.00000293
0.00719
0.113
0.326
and Murphy et al, 2000,
Table Hl-4: Drums/Croakers Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juveniles
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.500
4.61
3.38
0.420
0.420
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000721
0.00000464
0.000212
0.120
0.156
0.195
0.239
0.287
0.340
0.398
0.458
0.519
0.584
0.648
0.723
a. Includes croakers.
Sources: Isaacson, 1964; Tenera Environmental Services, 1988, 2000b, 2001; andCailliet, 2000,
APP. Hl-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic
Appendix HI
Table Hl-5: Flounders Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
Weight
(Ibs)
Eggs
0.223
0.000000303
Larvae
6.28
0.00121
Juveniles
1.14
0.00882
Age 1+
0.363
0.242
0.5
0.0671
Age 2+
0.649
0.432
0.226
Age 3+
0.752
0.501
0.553
Age 4+
0.752
0.501
1
1.13
Sources:. Cailliet, 2000; ENSR and Marine Research, 2000; Tenera Environmental Services, 2000a,
2001; Leet et al, 2001; and personal communication with Y. DeReynier (NMFS, November 19, 2002).
Table Hl-6: Forage Shrimp Life History Parameters3
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juveniles
Age 1+
Age 2+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.693
3.00
2.30
2.30
2.30
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000249
0.000000736
0.0000865
0.000131
0.00236
a. Includes brown shrimp, hardback shrimp, Penaeid species, and white shrimp.
Sources: Siegfried, 1989; Virginia Tech, 1998; and Tenera Environmental Services, 2001.
Table Hl-7: Gobies Life History Parameters3
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juveniles
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.000
5.77
0.871
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000115
0.0000190
0.000169
0.00194
0.00414
0.00762
0.0310
0.0810
a. Includes Gobionellus and Gobiosoma species.
Sources: Wang, 1986; Froese andPauly, 2000, 2002; Tenera Environmental Services, 2000a; and
NMFS, 2003a.
App. Hl-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic
Appendix HI
Table Hl-8: Other Commercial Crabs Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.000
7.99
2.43
2.43
2.43
1.82
1.82
1.82
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.610
0.610
0.610
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000153
0.0000279
0.289
0.654
1.26
1.97
2.55
3.00
a. Includes Portunidae and swimming crabs.
Sources: Carroll, 1982; Tenera Environmental Services, 2000a; University of Washington, 2000; and
Leetetal, 2001.
Table Hl-9: Other Commercial Species Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juveniles
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.08
5.71
2.85
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.800
0.800
0.800
0.800
0.800
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
a. Includes mojarra.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbin et al, 1983; Ruppert et al, 1985; Able andFahay, 1998; PSE&G,
1999; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; andASMFC, 200Ib.
App. Hl-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic
Appendix HI
Table Hl-10: Other Forage Species Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juveniles
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
(M) (F)
1.04 0.000
7.70 0.000
1.29 0.000
1.62 0.000
1.62 0.000
1.62 0.000
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
a. Includes blackcheek tonguefish, cutlassfish, grunt, and Atlantic silversides, as well
organisms not identified to species.
Sources: Derickson and Price, 1973; andPSE&G, 1999.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000186
0.00000158
0.000481
0.00381
0.00496
0.00505
as other
Table Hl-11:
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juveniles
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Other Recreational and Commercial
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
(M) (F)
2.08 0.000
5.71 0.000
2.85 0.000
0.450 0.000
0.450 0.800
0.450 0.800
0.450 0.800
0.450 0.800
0.450 0.800
Species Life History
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Parameters"
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.0240
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
a. Includes jack.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbin et al, 1983; Ruppert et al, 1985; Able andFahay, 1998; PSE&G,
1999; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; andASMFC, 200 Ib.
Table Hl-12: Pinfish Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juveniles
Age 1+
Age 2
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
(M) (F)
2.30 0.000
7.39 0.000
1.91 0.000
0.340 0.340
0.340 0.340
Sources: Muncy, 1984; Nelson, 1998; and Froese and Pauly,
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.5
1
2001.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000107
0.0000238
0.00668
0.0791
0.218
App. Hl-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic
Appendix HI
Table Hl-13: Pink Shrimp Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juveniles
Age 1+
Source: Eielsa et
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
3.22
3.40
0.140
0.140
al, 1983.
Parameters
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0.000
0.000
0.140
0.140
0
0
1
1
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000253
0.00000274
0.0473
0.0770
Table Hl-14: Scaled Sardine Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juveniles
Agel+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.12
7.09
0.916
1.02
Parameters"
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000533
0.00000586
0.000483
0.275
a. Includes threadfin shad.
Sources: Houde et al., 1974; Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1980; Pierce et al, 2001;
Froese andPauly, 2003; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table Hl-15: Silver Perch Life History Parameters8
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juveniles
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.75
5.37
1.71
3.84
3.84
3.84
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.100
0.100
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.5
1
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000527
0.00000771
0.0444
0.273
0.415
0.607
a. Includes star drum.
Sources: Able andFahay, 1998; PSE&G, 1999; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,
2001; Froese andPauly, 2001, 2003; and personal communication with Michael D. Murphy (Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute, January 23, 2002).
APP. Hl-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic
Appendix HI
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juveniles
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Sources: Warlen
Table Hl-16:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.825
7.42
2.57
0.463
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
Spot Life History
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0 0
0 0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weight
(Ibs)
.000000131
.000000854
0.000121
0.0791
0.299
0.507
0.648
0.732
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
etal, 1980; andPSE&G, 1984, 1999.
Table Hl-17: Spotted Seatrout Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juveniles
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
8.42
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0.000
0.000
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0 0
0 0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sources: Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1980; Johnson and Seaman, 1986;
1986; and Murphy and Taylor, 1994.
Weight
(Ibs)
.000000842
.000000926
0.571
0.913
1.55
2.50
3.15
3.54
4.41
4.97
4.99
Sutler et al,
App. Hl-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic
Appendix HI
Table Hl-18: Stone Crab Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Larvae
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
11.8
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0.000
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000160
Juveniles
1.97
0.0000182
Age 1+
0.939
0.751
0.5
1.02
Age 2+
0.939
0.751
3.63
Age 3+
0.939
0.751
7.12
Age 4+
0.939
0.751
1
10.0
Sources: Bert et al, 1978; Sullivan, 1979; Lindberg and Marshall, 1984; Van den Avyle and Fowler,
1984; andEhrhardt et al., 1990.
Table Hl-19: Striped Mullet Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juveniles
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Sources: Collins,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
4.61
0.916
0.230
0.230
0.230
0.230
0.230
0.230
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
1985; Wang, 1986; PSE&G, 1999; andFroese
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
andPauly, 2003.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000537
0.0000110
0.131
0.187
0.379
0.774
1.58
3.21
6.53
App. Hl-8
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic
Appendix HI
Table Hl-20: Weakfish Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juveniles
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Sources:, PSE&G,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.04
7.70
3.92
0.349
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
1999; PG&E National Energy Group, 2001;
Fraction
Vulnerable to Weight
Fishery (Ibs)
0 0.0000000787
0 0.000000235
0 0.0251
0.1 0.260
0.5 0.680
1 1.12
1 1.79
1 2.91
1 6.21
1 7.14
1 9.16
1 10.8
1 12.5
1 12.5
1 12.5
1 12.5
1 12.5
1 12.5
and Froese and Pauly, 2003..
App. Hl-9
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic
Chapter ffi
Chapter H2: Evaluation of Impingement and
Entrainment in the South Atlantic Region
Background: South Atlantic Marine
Fisheries
Among the species that are vulnerable to
impingement and entrainment (I&E) by intakes in
the South Atlantic region are menhaden, several
members of the drum and croaker family, and
shrimps, crabs, and other invertebrates (NMFS,
1999a).
Menhaden are an important food source for many
species offish and birds. There is also an active bait
fishery for menhanden, and purse seiners harvest
menhaden for fish meal, fish oil, and fish solubles.
Menhaden fisheries are managed by individual states but
coast, there is also interstate coordination by the Atlantic
Marine Fisheries Commission.
Chapter Contents
H2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated H2-1
H2-2 I&E Data Evaluated H2-2
H2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III
Facilities in the South Atlantic Region
Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Yield H2-3
H2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities
in the South Atlantic Region H2-4
H2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating
Recreational and Commercial Losses H2-4
because menhaden migrate long distances along the
States Marine Fisheries Commission and the Gulf States
Atlantic croaker, black drum, weakfish, spotted seatrout and other species of the family Sciaenidae are important
for both commercial and recreational fisheries in the South Atlantic region. However, regulations in some states
favor recreational uses (NMFS, 1999a). Bycatch of these species in the shrimp fishery is currently an important
management concern.
The penaeid shrimp fishery is extensive and valuable (NMFS, 1999a). In fact, all commercial shrimps in NOAA's
Southeast Region are harvested at maximum levels (NMFS, 1999a).
Recent average fishery yields in the region are considered underestimated because they generally include only
commercial landings (NMFS, 1999a). Although recreational landings can be considerable, they are generally not
available for invertebrate species such as blue crab that dominate the nearshore fisheries of the region.
H2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated
Table H2-1 provides a list of species/species groups evaluated by EPA that are subject to I&E in the South
Atlantic region. Appendix HI provides the life history parameters that were used to express these losses as age-1
equivalents and foregone fishery yield.
H2-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic Chapter H2
Table H2-1: Species/Species Groups Evaluated by EPA that are Subject to
I&E in the South Atlantic Region
Species/Species Group
Atlantic menhaden
Bay anchovy
Blue crab
Crabs (commercial)
Drums and croakers
Flounders
Gobies
Herrings
Other (commercial)
Other (forage)
Other (recreational and commercial)
Pinfish
Pink shrimp
Scaled sardine
Shrimp (forage)
Silver perch
Spot
Spotted seatrout
Stone crab
Striped mullet
Weakfish
Recreational
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Commercial
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Forage
X
X
X
X
X
X
H2-2 I&E Data Evaluated
Table H2-2 lists the facility I&E data evaluated by EPA to estimate current I&E rates at Phase III facilities in the
South Atlantic Region. See Chapter Al of Part A for a discussion of the methods used to evaluate the I&E data.
Table H2-2: Facility I&E Data Evaluated for the South Atlantic Analysis
Facility Phase Years of Data
Brunswick Nuclear II 1974-2000
St. Lucie Nuclear II 1977
H2-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic Chapter H2
H2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III Facilities in the South Atlantic Region
Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Yield
Table H2-3 provides EPA's estimates of the annual age-1 equivalents and foregone fishery yield resulting from
the impingement of aquatic species at Phase III facilities located in the South Atlantic region. Table H2-4 displays
this information for entrainment. Note that in these tables, "total yield" includes direct losses of harvested species
and the yield of harvested species that is lost due to losses of forage species (trophic transfer).
The lost yield estimates presented in Tables H2-3 and H2-4 are expressed as total pounds and include losses to
both commercial and recreational catch. To estimate the economic value of these losses, total yield was
partitioned between commercial and recreational fisheries based on the landings in each fishery. Table H2-5
presents the percentage impacts assumed for each species/species group.
Table H2-3: Estimated Current Annual Impingement at Phase III Facilities
in the South Atlantic Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Atlantic menhaden
Bay anchovy
Blue crab
Crabs (commercial)
Drums and croakers
Flounders
Gobies
Herrings
Other (commercial)
Other (forage)
Other (recreational and commercial)
Pinfish
Pink shrimp
Scaled sardine
Shrimp (forage)
Silver perch
Spot
Spotted seatrout
Stone crab
Striped mullet
Trophic transfer3
Weakfish
Age-1 Equivalents (#s)
99,000
1,180,000
4,390
332
271,000
77
1,940,000
213
181
31,000
129
40,800
294
83
468,000
11,000
508,000
6,450
16
9
<1
4,020
a. Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see
Total Yield (Ibs)
19,600
<1
54
<1
15,800
7
<1
<1
36
<1
25
1,730
3
<1
<1
1
57,000
5,770
12
4
493
3,160
Chapter Al).
H2-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic Chapter H2
Table H2-4: Estimated Current Annual Entrainment at Phase III Facilities
in the South Atlantic Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Atlantic menhaden
Bay anchovy
Age-1 Equivalents (#s) Total Yield (Ibs)
244,000 48,200
4,700,000 <1
Blue crab <1 <1
Crabs (commercial)
Drums croakers
188,000 38
3,660,000 214,000
Flounders <1 <1
Gobies
14,200,000 <1
Herrings <1 <1
Other (commercial) <1 <1
Other (forage)
117,000 <1
Other (recreational and commercial) <1 <1
Pinfish
49 2
Pink shrimp <1 <1
Scaled sardine <1 <1
Shrimp (forage)
Silver perch
Spot
Spotted seatrout
14,300,000 <1
60 <1
187,000 20,900
11 10
Stone crab <1 <1
Striped mullet <1 <1
Trophic transfer3
Weakfish
a Contribution of forage fish to yield
<1 4,150
2 2
based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
H2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities in the South Atlantic Region
There were no reductions in I&E under any of the options.
H2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating Recreational and Commercial Losses
The lost yield estimates presented in Tables H2-3 and H2-4 are expressed as total pounds and include losses to
both commercial and recreational catch. Total yield was partitioned between commercial and recreational
fisheries based on the landings in each fishery. Table H2-5 presents the percentage impacts assumed for each
species/species group.
H2-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic Chapter H2
Table H2-5: Percentage of Total Impacts
in the South Atlantic Region
Occurring to Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
as a Result of I&E at Phase III Facilities
Percent Impact to
Species/Species Group Recreational Fisherya'b
Alewife
American plaice
American shad
Atlantic cod
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic herring
Atlantic mackerel
Atlantic menhaden
Bigmouth buffalo
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Black drum
Blue crab
Bluefish
Bluegill
Brown bullhead
Bullhead species
Butterfish
Channel catfish
Crabs (commercial)
Crappie
Gunner
Darter species
Drums and croakers
Flounders
Freshwater drum
Golden redhorse
Leatherjacket
Logperch
Mackerels
Menhaden species
Muskellunge
Other (commercial)
Other (recreational and commercial)
Other (recreational)
Paddlefish
Pinfish
Pink shrimp
Pollock
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
77.3%
19.0%
22.2%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
93.0%
0.0%
89.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
69.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
73.5%
50.0%
100.0%
0.0%
50.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50.0%
50.0%
Percent Impact to
Commercial Fishery a'b
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50.0%
22.7%
81.0%
77.8%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
7.0%
100.0%
10.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
30.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
26.5%
50.0%
0.0%
100.0%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
50.0%
H2-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic Chapter H2
Table H2-5: Percentage of Total Impacts Occurring to Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
in the South Atlantic Region as a Result of I&E at Phase III Facilities
Percent Impact to Percent Impact to
Species/Species Group Recreational Fisherya'b Commercial Fisherya'b
Red drum
Red hake
River carpsucker
Salmon
Sauger
Sculpins
Scup
Searobin
Sheepshead
Silver hake
Silver perch
Skate species
Smallmouth bass
Smelts
Spot
Spotted seatrout
Spotted sucker
Stone crab
Striped bass
Striped mullet
Sturgeon species
Sucker species
Summer flounder
Sunfish
Tautog
Trophic transfer0
Walleye
Weakfish
White bass
White perch
Whitefish
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Yellow perch
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
79.0%
50.0%
92.0%
67.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
38.1%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
95.5%
10.1%
100.0%
100.0%
88.0%
100.0%
92.2%
63.5%
100.0%
77.2%
100.0%
66.0%
100.0%
0.0%
63.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
21.0%
50.0%
8.0%
33.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
61.9%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
4.5%
89.9%
0.0%
0.0%
12.0%
0.0%
7.8%
36.5%
0.0%
22.8%
0.0%
34.0%
0.0%
100.0%
37.0%
0.0%
a. Based on landings from 1993 to 2001.
b Calculated using recreational landings data from NMFS (2003b,
..http://www.st.nmfs.gov/recreational/queries/catch/snapshot.htmU and commercial landings data from
NMFS (2003a, .http://www.st.nmfs.gov/commercial/landings/annual landings.htmL).
°. Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
H2-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic Appendix H2
Appendix H2: Reductions in I&E Under
Supplemental Policy Options
Table H2-1: Estimated Reductions in I&E in the
South Atlantic Region Under Supplemental Options
Age-1 Equivalents Foregone Fishery Yield
Option (#s) (Ibs)
Electric Generators 2-50 MGD
I-only Everywhere 0 0
I&E like Phase II 0 0
I&E Everywhere 0 0
Manufacturers 2-50 MGD
I-only Everywhere 0 0
I&E like Phase II 0 0
I&E Everywhere 0 0
Manufacturers 50+ MGD
I-only Everywhere 0 0
I&E Everywhere 0 0
App. H2-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic Chapter H3
Chapter H3: Commercial Fishing Benefits
Introduction
Chapter Contents
This chapter presents the results of the commercial
H3-1 Baseline Commercial Losses H3-1
H3-2 Expected Benefits Under Regulatory
Analysis Options H3 -2
fishing benefits analysis for the South Atlantic
region. The chapter presents EPA's estimates of
baseline (i.e., current) annual commercial fishery
losses from impingement and entrainment (I&E) at
potentially regulated facilities in the South Atlantic
region and annual reductions in these losses under the regulatory options for Phase III existing facilities.1.:
» the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option,
»• the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, and
»• the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies" option.
The chapter then presents the estimated benefits to commercial fisheries under the regulatory options from
eliminating baseline losses from I&E.
Chapter A4, "Methods for Estimating Commercial Fishing Benefits," details the methods used by EPA to
estimate the commercial fishing benefits of reducing and eliminating I&E losses.
EPA considered a wide range of policy options in developing this regulation. In addition to the regulatory options,
EPA evaluated supplemental options. For additional information on the options, please see the TDD.
Appendix H3 presents results of the commercial fishing benefits analysis for the supplemental options.
H3-1 Baseline Commercial Losses
Table H3-1 provides EPA's estimate of the value of gross revenues lost in commercial fisheries resulting from the
impingement of aquatic species at facilities in the South Atlantic region. Table H3-2 displays this information for
entrainment. Total annualized revenue losses are approximately $99,210 (undiscounted).
1 See the Introduction to this report for a description of the regulatory options.
H3-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic
Chapter H3
Table H3-1: Annualized Commercial Fishing Gross Revenues Lost due to
Impingement at Facilities in the South Atlantic Region
Commercial Estimated Value
Estimated Value per of Harvest Lost
Pounds of Pound (2004$)
Species3
Atlantic menhaden
Blue crab
Drums and croakers
Other (species are only commercially
fished not recreationally)
Other (species are fished both
commercially and recreationally)
Pink shrimp
Spot
Stone crab
Striped Mullet
Weakfish
Trophic transferb
Harvest Lost
19,565
54
4,888
36
13
1
35,228
12
4
720
180
(2004$) Undiscounted
$0.07
$0.74
$1.06
$0.56
$0.56
$1.24
$0.37
$1.54
$0.71
$0.69
$0.54
a Species included are only those that have baseline losses greater than $1.
b Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter
$1,357
$40
$5,180
$20
$7
$2
$13,016
$18
$3
$497
$97
Al).
Table H3-2: Annualized Commercial Fishing Gross Revenues Lost due
to Entrainment at Facilities in the South Atlantic Region
Species"
Atlantic menhaden
Commercial crabs
Drums and croakers
Spot
Trophic. transferb
Estimated
Pounds of
Harvest Lost
48,231
38
66,058
12,947
1,516
Commercial
Value per
Pound
(2004$)
$0.07
$0.57
$1.06
$0.37
$0.54
Estimated Value
of Harvest Lost
(2004$)
Undiscounted
$3,344
$21
$70,009
$4,784
$815
a. Species included are only those that have baseline losses greater than $1.
b Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter
Al).
H3-2 Expected Benefits Under Regulatory Analysis Options
There are no facilities in the South Atlantic region that have technology requirements under any of the three
regulatory options. Thus, no commercial fishing benefits are expected from the three regulatory options, the
"50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, and the "100 MOD for
Certain Waterbodies" option, in the South Atlantic Region.
H3-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic Appendix H3
Appendix H3: Commercial Fishing Benefits
Under Supplemental Policy Options
Introduction
Appendix Contents
Chapter H3 presents EPA's estimates of the
H3-1 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the
Supplemental Options H3-1
commercial benefits of the three regulatory options
for the section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities in
the South Atlantic region. To facilitate comparisons
among the options, this appendix presents estimates
of the commercial fishing benefits of various supplemental options that EPA evaluated in preparation for this rule:
>• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option;
*• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option;
>• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option;
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option;
> "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option;
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option;
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere" option; and
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I&E Everywhere" option.
For additional information on the options, please see the TDD. Commercial fishing benefits presented in this
chapter were estimated using the benefit transfer approach discussed in Chapter H3 and in Chapter A4, "Methods
for Estimating Commercial Fishing Benefits."
H3-1 Commercial Fishing Benefits of the Supplemental Options
No facilities located in the South Atlantic region have technology requirements under the supplemental options.
Thus, no reductions in commercial fishing losses are expected under the supplemental options in the South
Atlantic region.
App. H3-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic
Chapter H4
Chapter H4: Recreational Use Benefits
Chapter Contents
H4-1
H4-2
Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-
Analysis H4-1
H4-1.1 Baseline Losses and Reductions in
Recreational Fishery Losses Under
the Regulatory Options H4-2
H4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits
from Eliminating Baseline I&E
Losses H4-3
H4-1.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of
the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies"
Option H4-4
H4-1.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of
the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies"
Option H4-4
H4-1.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the
"100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies"
Option H4-4
Limitations and Uncertainty H4-4
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the recreational
fishing benefits analysis for the South Atlantic
region. The chapter presents EPA's estimates of
baseline (i.e., current) annual recreational fishery
losses from impingement and entrainment (I&E) at
potentially regulated facilities in the South Atlantic
region and annual reductions in these losses under
the regulatory options for Phase III existing
facilities.1:
» the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option,
> the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option,
and
> the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies"
option.
The chapter then presents the estimated welfare gain
to South Atlantic anglers from eliminating baseline
recreational fishing losses from I&E and the
expected benefits under the regulatory options.
EPA estimated the recreational benefits of reducing and eliminating I&E losses using a benefit transfer
methodology based on a meta-analysis of the marginal value of catching different species offish. This meta-
analysis is discussed in detail in Chapter A5, "Recreational Fishing Benefits Methodology."
EPA considered a wide range of policy options in developing this regulation. In addition to the regulatory options,
EPA evaluated supplemental options. For additional information on the options, please see the TDD.
Appendix H4 presents results of the recreational fishing benefits analysis for the supplemental options.
H4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-Analysis
EPA estimated the recreational welfare gain from the reduction in annual I&E losses expected under the policy
options, and the welfare gain from eliminating I&E at potentially regulated facilities, using a benefit transfer
approach. As discussed in Chapter A5, the Agency used a meta-analysis regression equation to estimate the
marginal recreational value per additional fish caught by anglers, for different species in different regions. Since
I&E at potentially regulated facilities affects a variety of species, EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to
one of the general species groups used in the meta-analysis. The Agency then calculated the economic value of
reducing or eliminating baseline I&E losses, for each species group, by multiplying the value per fish for that
species group by the number offish in the group that are lost in the baseline or saved under the policy options.2.
1 See the Introduction to this report for a description of the regulatory options.
The estimates of I&E presented in this chapter include only the fraction of impinged and entrained recreational
fish that would be caught by anglers. The total amount of I&E of recreational species is actually much higher.
H4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic Chapter H4
In general, the fit between the species with I&E losses and the species groups in the meta-analysis was good.
However, EPA's estimates of baseline I&E losses and reductions in I&E under the policy options included losses
of "unidentified" species. The "unidentified" group includes fish lost indirectly through trophic transfer, as well as
species for which no species information was available.3. Rather than using the meta-analysis regression to try to
predict the value per fish for an "unidentified" species, EPA assumed that per-fish values for these species can be
approximated by the weighted average value per fish for all species affected by I&E in the South Atlantic region.4
H4-1.1 Baseline Losses and Reductions in Recreational Fishery Losses Under the Regulatory Options
Table H4-1 presents EPA's estimates of baseline (i.e., current) annual recreational I&E losses at potentially
regulated facilities, and annual reductions in these losses under each of the regulatory options, in the South
Atlantic region. The table shows that total baseline losses to recreational fisheries are 549.2 thousand fish per
year. In comparison, the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option prevents losses of 0 fish per year, the "200 MGD
for All Waterbodies" option prevents losses of 0 fish per year, and the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies"
option prevents losses of 0 fish per year. Of all the affected species, croakers and spot have the highest losses in
the baseline.
In addition to recreational fish that are lost because they are impinged or entrained, some recreational fish are lost
because the forage fish that they feed on are impinged or entrained, and thus removed from the food chain. These
trophic transfer losses of recreational species are included in EPA's estimates of total I&E losses. Since it is difficult to
predict which recreational species would be affected by losses of forage fish, these losses are classified as
"unidentified" recreational species. Also included in the "unidentified" group are losses offish that were reported by
facilities without information about their exact species.
4 EPA used the estimated level of baseline recreational losses for each species group as a weighting factor.
H4-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic
Chapter H4
Table H4-1: Baseline Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III
Facilities and Reductions in Recreational Losses Under the Regulatory Options in the
South Atlantic Region
Baseline Annual Recreational
Fishing Losses
Annual Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses
(# of fish)
Species"
Spotted seatrout
Weakfish
Total (small game)
Flounders
Total (flatfish)
Croakers
Pinfish
Silver perch
Spot
Total (other saltwater)
Total (unidentified)
Total (all species)
(# of fish)
2,353.5
446.5
2,799.9
17.2
17.2
462,234.3
9,572.1
3.0
71,641.7
543,451.3
2,966.3
549,252.6
50 MGD All"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
200 MGD All"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100 MGD CWBb
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a. EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to one of the species groups used in the meta-analysis. The "other
saltwater" group includes bottomfish and other miscellaneous species. The "unidentified" group includes fish lost
indirectly through trophic transfer and fish reported lost without information about their species.
b No facilities in the South Atlantic region have technology requirements under the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies"
option, the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option, or the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
H4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses
Table H4-2 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the welfare gain to recreational anglers from eliminating
baseline recreational fishery losses at potentially regulated facilities in the South Atlantic region. The table
presents baseline annual recreational I&E losses, the estimated value per fish, and the monetized annual welfare
gain from eliminating recreational losses, for each species group. Total baseline recreational fishing losses for the
South Atlantic region are 549.2 thousand fish per year. The undiscounted annual welfare gain to South Atlantic
anglers from eliminating these losses is $1.3 million (2004$), with lower and upper bounds of $0.8 million and
$2.2 million. Evaluated at 3% and 7% discount rates, the mean annualized welfare gain of eliminating these losses
is $1.2 million and $1.2 million, respectively. The majority of monetized recreational losses from I&E under
baseline conditions are attributable to losses of species in the "other saltwater" group, such as croakers and spot.
H4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic
Chapter H4
Table H4-2: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E at Potentially Regulated
Phase III Facilities in the South Atlantic Region (2004$)
Baseline Annual
Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish1
Annualized Benefits from Eliminating
Recreational Fishing Losses
(thousands) c'd
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at
3% discount rate)
Total (evaluated at
7% discount rate)
(thousands of fish)8
2.8
0.0e
543.5
3.0
549.2
549.2
549.2
Low
$1.96
$2.91
$1.48
$1.49
Mean
$4.82
$4.73
$2.40
$2.41
High
$11.60
$7.68
$3.91
$3.95
Low
$5.5
$0.0f
$806.2
$4.4
$816.1
$768.6
$712.4
Mean
$13.5
$0.1
$1,302.8
$7.1
$1,323.5
$1,246.3
$1,155.3
High
$32.5
$0.1
$2,124.3
$11.7
$2,168.6
$2,042.2
$1,893.1
a. Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have been caught by
recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
°. Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying baseline losses by the estimated value per fish.
d Annualized values represent the total welfare gain over the time frame of the analysis from eliminating recreational
losses, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
and annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
e Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
f Denotes a positive value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
H4-1.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
No facilities located in the South Atlantic region have technology requirements under the "50 MGD for All
Waterbodies" option. Thus, no recreational benefits are expected under this option in the South Atlantic region.
H4-1.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
No facilities located in the South Atlantic region have technology requirements under the "200 MGD for All
Waterbodies" option. Thus, no recreational benefits are expected under this option in the South Atlantic region.
H4-1.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
No facilities located in the South Atlantic region have technology requirements under the "100 MGD for Certain
Waterbodies" option. Thus, no recreational benefits are expected under this option in the South Atlantic region.
H4-2 Limitations and Uncertainty
The results of the benefit transfer based on a meta-analysis represent EPA's best estimate of the recreational
benefits of the regulatory options. Nonetheless, there are a number of limitations and uncertainties inherent in
these estimates. General limitations pertaining to the development of the meta-analysis model, the use of the
model to estimate per-fish values, and the validity of the benefit transfer are discussed in section A5-3.3e and
section A5-5.3 of Chapter A5.
H4-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic Appendix H4
Appendix H4: Recreational Use Benefits
Under Supplemental Policy Options
Introduction
Appendix Contents
Chapter H4 presents EPA's estimates of the
H4-1 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the
Supplemental Options H4-1
recreational benefits of the three regulatory options
for the section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities in
the South Atlantic region. To facilitate comparisons
among the options, this appendix presents estimates
of the recreational fishing benefits of supplemental options that EPA evaluated in preparation for this rule:
*• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option;
» "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option;
>• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option;
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option;
•> "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option;
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option;
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere" option; and
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I&E Everywhere" option.
For additional information on the options, please see the TDD. Recreational fishing benefits presented in
this chapter were estimated using the benefit transfer approach discussed in Chapter H4 and in Chapter A5,
"Recreational Fishing Benefits Methodology."
H4-1 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Supplemental Options
No facilities located in the South Atlantic region have technology requirements under the supplemental options.
Thus, no reductions in recreational fishing losses are expected under the supplemental options in the South
Atlantic region.
App. H4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic
Chapter H5
Chapter H5: Federally Listed T&E Species
in the South Atlantic Region
This chapter lists current federally listed threatened and endangered (T&E) fish and shellfish species in the South
Atlantic Region. This list does not address proposed or candidate species; In addition, fish and shellfish listed as
cave species, marine mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and snails are not included in this chapter.
Table H5-1: Florida
Status Scientific Name
E
T
E
T
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
Source:
Acipenser brevirostrum
Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi
Amblema neislerii
Elliptic chipolaensis
Elliptoideus sloatianus
Etheostoma okaloosae
Lampsilis subangulata
Medionidus penicillatus
Medionidus simpsonianus
Pleurobema pyriforme
Pristis pectinata
USFWS, 2006a.
Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Shortnose sturgeon
Gulf sturgeon
Fat three-ridge mussel
Chipola slabshell mussel
Purple bankclimber mussel
Okaloosa darter
Shinyrayed pocketbook mussel
Gulf moccasinshell
Ochlockonee moccasinshell
Oval pigtoe mussel
Smalltooth sawfish
Status
T
T
E
E
T
E
T
E
E
E
T
E
T
T
E
Table H5-2: Georgia
Scientific Name
Elliptoideus sloatianus
Medionidus acutissimus
Pleurobema decisum
Acipenser brevirostrum
Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi
Amblema neislerii
Cyprinella caerulea
Epioblasma capsaeformis
Epioblasma metastriata
Epioblasma othcaloogensis
Erimonax monachus
Etheostoma etowahae
Etheostoma scotti
Lampsilis altilis
Lampsilis subangulata
Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Purple bankclimber mussel
Alabama moccasinshell
Southern clubshell mussel
Shortnose sturgeon
Gulf sturgeon
Fat three-ridge mussel
Blue shiner
Oyster mussel: entire range except where listed as
experimental populations
Upland combshell mussel
Southern acornshell mussel
Sporfin chub: entire range except where listed as
experimental populations
Etowah darter
Cherokee darter
Finelined pocketbook mussel
Shinyrayed pocketbook mussel
H5-1
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: South Atlantic Chapter H5
Table H5-2: Georgia
Status Scientific Name
E
E
E
E
T
E
T
E
E
E
E
Source:
Medionidus parvulus
Medionidus penicillatus
Medionidus simpsonianus
Percina antesella
Percina aurolineata
Percina jenkinsi
Percina tanasi
Pleurobema georgianum
Pleurobema perovatum
Pleurobema pyriforme
Ptychobranchus greenii
USFWS, 2006a.
Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Common Name
Coosa moccasinshell
Gulf moccasinshell
Ochlockonee moccasinshell
Amber darter
Goldline darter
Conasauga logperch
Snail darter
Southern pigtoe mussel
Ovate clubshell mussel
Oval pigtoe mussel
Triangular kidneyshell mussel
Table H5-3: North Carolina Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status Scientific Name
E
E
E
E
E
T
E
T
E
E
E
Source:
Acipenser brevirostrum
Alasmidonta raveneliana
Elliptio steinstansana
Epioblasma capsaeformis
Epioblasma florentina walkeri ( = E. walkeri)
Erimonax monachus
Lasmigona decorata
Menidia extensa
Notropis mekistocholas
Pegiasfabula
Pristis pectinata
USFWS, 2006a.
Common Name
Shortnose sturgeon
Appalachian elktoe mussel
Tar River spinymussel
Oyster mussel: entire range except where listed as
experimental populations
Tan riffleshell mussel
Spotfin chub: entire range except where listed as
experimental populations
Carolina heelsplitter mussel
Waccamaw silverside
Cape Fear shiner
Littlewing pearlymussel
Smalltooth sawfish
Table H5-4: South Carolina Federally Listed T&E Fish and Shellfish
Status
E
E
E
Scientific Name
Acipenser brevirostrum
Lasmigona decorata
Pristis pectinata
Common
Shortnose sturgeon
Carolina heelsplitter mussel
Smalltooth sawfish
Name
Source: USFWS, 2006a.
H5-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment
Part I: National Benefits
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits Chapter II
Chapter II: National Benefits
Introduction
Chapter Contents
This chapter summarizes the results of the seven
regional analyses and presents EPA's estimates of
the national commercial and recreational benefits
of the regulatory analysis options for Phase III
existing facilities:
11-4 National Benefits from Eliminating and
11 -1 Calculating National Losses and Benefits 11-1
11-2 Summary of Baseline Losses and Expected
Reductions inl&E 11-2
11-3 Time Profile of Benefits 11-4
Reducing I&E Losses 11-12
> the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies"
option,
> the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, and
»• the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies" option.
EPA considered a wide range of policy options in developing this regulation. Results of the national benefits
analysis for supplemental options evaluated by EPA are presented in Appendix II.
Greater detail on the methods and data used in the regional analyses is provided in the previous chapters of this
report. See Chapters Al and A2 for a discussion of the methods used to estimate impingement and entrainment
(I&E), and Chapters A3 through A9 for a discussion of the methods used to estimate the value of I&E losses and
the benefits of the policy options considered for the final rule. The results of the regional analyses are presented in
Parts B through H.
EPA was unable to assess benefits of reducing I&E at existing offshore oil and gas extraction facilities in the
same manner as other existing facilities, which would require predicting where these facilities would build and/or
operate, and due to lack of I&E data for these facilities. Therefore, the benefits estimates presented in this section
do not reflect benefits associated with reducing I&E at existing offshore oil and gas extraction facilities and
overall national benefits may be accordingly higher.
11-1 Calculating National Losses and Benefits
EPA's analysis of national baseline losses and benefits under the regulatory analysis options includes 629 sample-
weighted facilities, excluding facilities that are expected to close in the baseline. The Agency calculated baseline
losses by summing losses from all 629 facilities in the seven case study regions. EPA's estimates of benefits are
based on only those facilities that would be expected to install compliance technologies under each regulatory
analysis option because the baseline is best professional judgment.
EPA notes that quantifying and monetizing reductions in I&E under the regulatory analysis options considered for
the final section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities is extremely challenging. As described in Chapters A3 and A6,
EPA has estimated non-use values qualitatively and, as a result, the estimated monetized benefits of the regulatory
analysis options reflect use values only. The preceding sections of this report discuss specific limitations and
uncertainties associated with estimating commercial and recreational benefits. National benefit estimates, which
are based on the regional estimates, are subject to the same uncertainties inherent in the valuation approaches used
for assessing each of the two benefits categories. The combined effect of these uncertainties is of unknown
magnitude and direction (i.e., the estimates may over- or understate the anticipated national level of use benefits).
Nevertheless, EPA has no data to indicate that the results for any of the benefit categories are atypical or
unreasonable.
n-i
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits Chapter II
11-2 Summary of Baseline Losses and Expected Reductions in I&E
Based on the results of the regional analyses, EPA calculated total I&E losses under baseline (i.e., pre-Phase III
regulatory) conditions and the total amount by which losses would be reduced under each of the regulatory
analysis options. Losses are presented using two measures of I&E:
1. Age-1 equivalent losses (the number of individual fish of different ages impinged and entrained by
facility intakes, expressed as age-1 equivalents); and
2. Foregone fishery yield (pounds of commercial harvest and numbers of recreational fish and shellfish that
are not harvested due to I&E, including indirect losses of harvested species due to losses of forage
species).
Table 11-1 presents baseline I&E losses using each of these measures. The table shows that total national losses of
age-1 equivalents for all 629 facilities are 265 million fish. Nationwide, EPA estimates that 9.6 million pounds of
fishery yield is foregone under current rates of I&E. The table shows that about 33% of all age-1 equivalent
losses, or 86.4 million fish, occur in the Mid-Atlantic region. The Gulf of Mexico region has the highest foregone
fishery yield, with 7.5 million pounds, followed by the Mid-Atlantic region with 0.7 million pounds. More
detailed discussions of the I&E losses in each region are provided in Parts B through H of this report.
Table 11-1: Total Annual Baseline I&E Losses for Potential Phase III
Existing Facilities by Region
Age-1 Equivalents Foregone Fishery Yield
Region
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
National Total
(thousands)
1,710
2,310
86,400
42,100
35,800
31,500
65,100
265,000
(thousands; Ibs)
121
11
682
391
7,450
374
609
9,640
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
EPA also calculated the total national I&E losses prevented by each of the regulatory analysis options. These
prevented losses are based on the expected reductions in I&E at each facility due to technology installation
required under each option. Table 11-2 presents expected percent reductions in I&E, by region and option. The
table also presents estimates of regional and national expected reductions in I&E losses, expressed as age-1
equivalents lost and foregone fishery yield. The table shows that at the 629 national facilities potentially subject to
regulation, the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option reduces age-1 equivalent losses by 98.2 million fish and
prevents losses of 4.8 million pounds of fishery yield. In comparison, the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option
and the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option reduce age-1 equivalent losses by 74.5 million fish and 71.1
million fish and prevent 3.3 million pounds and 4.5 million pounds of fishery yield from being lost, respectively.
Table 11-2 also shows that expected reductions vary across the regions. Under the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies"
and "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" options, facilities in the Gulf of Mexico region are expected to make the
largest average percentage reductions in impingement (51%) and entrainment (58%). Facilities in the Gulf of
Mexico region also have the largest average percentage reductions in I&E for the "200 MGD for All
Waterbodies" option, with 30% and 42%, respectively. Under the 50 MGD All, 200 MGD All, and 100 MGD
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits
Chapter II
CWB options, the largest percentage of age-1 equivalent losses that are prevented are attributed to facilities in the
Mid-Atlantic region with 45%, 53% and 55%, respectively. Under all three options, the largest prevented losses
of fishery yield occur in the Gulf of Mexico (88% under the 50 MOD All option, 88% under the 200 MOD All
option, and 93% under the 100 MOD CWB option). More detailed discussions of regional benefits are provided in
Parts B through H of this report.
Table 11-2: Expected Reduction in I&E for Existing Phase III Facilities by Option
Number of
Facilities Installing Reduction in Reduction in
Region Technology Impingement Entrainment
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic3
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
National Total
Californiab
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic3
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
National Total
California13
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic3
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland0
National Total
1
4
3
0
7
18
78
111
0
1
2
0
3
7
13
27
0
3
2
0
7
10
0
22
37%
0%
23%
0%
51%
42%
39%
0%
0%
16%
0%
30%
30%
23%
0%
0%
16%
0%
51%
36%
0%
50 MGD All
28%
40%
53%
0%
58%
45%
15%
200 MGD All
0%
8%
47%
0%
42%
36%
13%
100 MGD CWB
0%
32%
47%
0%
58%
40%
0%
Prevented Age-1
Equivalent Losses
(thousands)
474
910
44,500
0
19,400
13,300
19,700
98,200
0
193
39,400
0
12,500
9,650
12,700
74,500
0
736
39,400
0
19,400
11,600
0
71,100
Prevented Foregone
Fishery Yield
(thousands; Ibs)
33
4
212
0
4,200
160
155
4,770
0
1
163
0
2,900
119
107
3,290
0
4
163
0
4,200
141
0
4,510
3 No I&E reductions are expected at the potentially regulated facilities in the South Atlantic region. Since these
facilities withdraw less than 50 MGD, none of the facilities in this region would be required to install technology to
comply with the regulatory analysis options.
b Since the California facilities withdraw less than 100 MGD, none of the facilities in this region would be required to
install technology to comply with the 200 MGD All and 100 MGD CWB options. Thus, no I&E reductions are
expected at the potentially regulated facilities in the California region under the 200 MGD All and 100 MGD CWB
options.
°. None of the facilities in the Inland region would be required to install technology to comply with the 100 MGD
CWB option. Thus, no I&E reductions are expected at the potentially regulated facilities in the Inland region.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
11-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits Chapter II
11-3 Time Profile of Benefits
EPA's estimates of total national baseline losses and total national benefits under each option are based on EPA's
regional estimates of monetized baseline losses and regulatory analysis option benefits. To recognize the
difference in timing of benefits and costs, EPA developed a time profile of total benefits from all potentially
regulated Phase III facilities that reflects when benefits from compliance-related changes at each facility would be
realized. The methodology that EPA used to develop this time profile is detailed in Chapter A8. For each study
region, EPA first calculated the undiscounted use benefits (i.e., commercial and recreational fishing benefits) from
the expected annual I&E reductions under the regulatory analysis options, based on the assumptions that all
facilities in each region would achieve compliance and that benefits are realized immediately following
compliance. Then, since there would be regulatory and biological time lags between promulgation of the
regulatory analysis options and the realization of benefits, EPA created a time profile of benefits that takes into
account the fact that benefits do not begin immediately. Using this time profile of benefits, EPA discounted the
total benefits generated in each year of the analysis to 2007 using discount rates of 3% and 7%..1.:2.
After calculating the present value of these benefits streams, EPA calculated their constant annual equivalent
value (annualized value), again using the discount rates of 3% and 7%. Although the analysis period extends from
2007 through 2048, a period of 42 years, EPA annualized benefits over 30 years, since 30 years is the assumed
period of compliance..3.
The development of the time profile of benefits is discussed in detail in Chapter A8, "Discounting Benefits."
Table 11-3 below presents a profile of the benefits of eliminating baseline I&E at all potentially regulated
facilities. Time profiles of benefits for the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies," "200 MOD for All Waterbodies," and
"100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies" options are presented in Tables 11-4,11-5, and 11-6, respectively.
-1. The 3% rate represents a reasonable estimate of the social rate of time preference. The 7% rate represents an
alternative discount rate, recommended by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), that reflects the estimated
opportunity cost of capital.
2. The 2007 start date was chosen because this is the assumed effective date of the rule.
.3. This same amiualization concept and period of amiualization were also followed in the analysis of costs, although
for costs the time horizon of analysis for calculating the present value is shorter than for benefits. Using a 30-year
amiualization period for both benefits and costs allows comparison of constant annual equivalent values of benefits and
costs that have been calculated on a mathematically consistent basis.
~4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits
Chapter II
Table 11-3: Time Profile of Mean Total Use Benefits of Eliminating Baseline I&E
at Potentially Regulated Phase III Facilities
(thousands; 2004$)a'b
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
California
$0
$14
$29
$115
$129
$136
$143
$143
$143
$143
$143
$143
$143
$143
$143
$143
$143
$143
$143
$143
$143
$143
$143
$143
$143
$143
$143
$143
$143
$143
$143
$129
$115
$29
$14
$7
$0
North
Atlantic
$0
$5
$11
$43
$49
$51
$54
$54
$54
$54
$54
$54
$54
$54
$54
$54
$54
$54
$54
$54
$54
$54
$54
$54
$54
$54
$54
$54
$54
$54
$54
$49
$43
$11
$5
$3
$0
Mid-
Atlantic
$0
$39
$77
$308
$347
$366
$385
$385
$385
$385
$385
$385
$385
$385
$385
$385
$385
$385
$385
$385
$385
$385
$385
$385
$385
$385
$385
$385
$385
$385
$385
$347
$308
$77
$39
$19
$0
South
Atlantic
$0
$142
$285
$1,138
$1,280
$1,352
$1,423
$1,423
$1,423
$1,423
$1,423
$1,423
$1,423
$1,423
$1,423
$1,423
$1,423
$1,423
$1,423
$1,423
$1,423
$1,423
$1,423
$1,423
$1,423
$1,423
$1,423
$1,423
$1,423
$1,423
$1,423
$1,280
$1,138
$285
$142
$71
$0
Gulf of
Mexico
$345
$690
$2,759
$3,104
$3,277
$3,449
$3,449
$3,449
$3,449
$3,449
$3,449
$3,449
$3,449
$3,449
$3,449
$3,449
$3,449
$3,449
$3,449
$3,449
$3,449
$3,449
$3,449
$3,449
$3,449
$3,449
$3,449
$3,449
$3,449
$3,449
$3,104
$2,759
$690
$345
$172
$0
$0
Great
Lakes
$128
$256
$1,025
$1,153
$1,217
$1,281
$1,281
$1,281
$1,281
$1,281
$1,281
$1,281
$1,281
$1,281
$1,281
$1,281
$1,281
$1,281
$1,281
$1,281
$1,281
$1,281
$1,281
$1,281
$1,281
$1,281
$1,281
$1,281
$1,281
$1,281
$1,153
$1,025
$256
$128
$64
$0
$0
Inland
$125
$249
$997
$1,121
$1,184
$1,246
$1,246
$1,246
$1,246
$1,246
$1,246
$1,246
$1,246
$1,246
$1,246
$1,246
$1,246
$1,246
$1,246
$1,246
$1,246
$1,246
$1,246
$1,246
$1,246
$1,246
$1,246
$1,246
$1,246
$1,246
$1,121
$997
$249
$125
$62
$0
$0
National
Total
$598
$1,396
$5,182
$6,982
$7,482
$7,881
$7,981
$7,981
$7,981
$7,981
$7,981
$7,981
$7,981
$7,981
$7,981
$7,981
$7,981
$7,981
$7,981
$7,981
$7,981
$7,981
$7,981
$7,981
$7,981
$7,981
$7,981
$7,981
$7,981
$7,981
$7,384
$6,585
$2,799
$999
$499
$100
$0
n-s
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits
Chapter II
Table 11-3: Time Profile of Mean Total Use Benefits of Eliminating Baseline I&E
at Potentially Regulated Phase III Facilities
(thousands; 2004$)a'b
Year
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
Present value0
Annualized valued
Present value0
Annualized valued
Present value0
Annualized valued
California
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,300
$143
$2,646
$135
$1,553
$125
North Mid- South Gulf of
Atlantic Atlantic Atlantic Mexico
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
Evaluated at 0% (Le., undiscounted)
$1,624 $11,554 $42,681 $103,476
$54 $385 $1,423 $3,449
Evaluated at 3% Discount Rate
$999 $7,109 $26,260 $65,575
$51 $363 $1,340 $3,346
Evaluated at 7% Discount Rate
$586 $4,172 $15,411 $39,979
$47 $336 $1,242 $3,222
Great
Lakes
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$38,424
$1,281
$24,350
$1,242
$14,845
$1,196
Inland
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$37,375
$1,246
$23,685
$1,208
$14,440
$1,164
National
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$239,434
$7,981
$150,625
$7,685
$90,986
$7,332
a. This table presents the benefits of eliminating baseline I&E at potentially regulated Phase III facilities from 2007 to
2036.
b Because EPA estimated non-use benefits qualitatively, the monetary value of benefits includes only use values.
0 Values for a given year in the table are not discounted. Total present values of benefits are discounted with the
corresponding rate.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to
2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
11-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits
Chapter II
Table 11-4:
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
Time Profile of Mean Total Use Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
(thousands; 2004$)a
California
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3
$7
$27
$30
$32
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$30
$27
$7
$3
North
Atlantic
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1
$3
$11
$13
$19
$20
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$20
$18
$10
Mid-
Atlantic
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2
$3
$22
$36
$96
$125
$133
$139
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$141
$139
$138
$119
$105
South
Atlantic15
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Gulf of
Mexico
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$165
$330
$1,320
$1,484
$1,567
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,484
$1,320
$330
Great
Lakes
$0
$0
$0
$3
$30
$75
$249
$315
$460
$495
$507
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$518
$515
$488
$444
$269
$203
Inland
$0
$0
$0
$6
$29
$84
$195
$235
$291
$313
$318
$322
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$323
$316
$294
$238
$127
$87
National
Total
$0
$0
$0
$9
$64
$335
$825
$1,946
$2,377
$2,552
$2,662
$2,683
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,685
$2,676
$2,622
$2,351
$1,860
$739
11-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits
Chapter II
Table 11-4: Time Profile of Mean Total Use Benefits of the
(thousands; 2004$)a
Year
2045
2046
2047
2048
California
$2
$0
$0
$0
North Mid-
Atlantic Atlantic
$8
$2
$1
$0e
$45
$16
$8
$2
South
Atlantic15
$0
$0
$0
$0
"50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Gulf of
Mexico
$165
$82
$0
$0
Great
Lakes
$58
$23
$11
$0
Inland
$31
$10
$4
$0.e
National
Total
$309
$133
$24
$2
Evaluated at 0% (Le., undiscounted)
Present Value0
Annualized Value.d
$1,004
$33
$629
$21
$4,228
$141
$0
$0
$49,483
$1,649
$15,543
$518
$9,676
$323
$80,563
$2,685
Evaluated at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value0
Annualized Valued
Present Value0
Annualized Valued
$565
$29
$296
$24
$336
$17
$165
$13
$2,244
$115
Evaluated at
$1,090
$88
$0
$0
$27,050
$1,380
$8,543
$436
$5,389
$275
$44,128
$2,251
7% Discount Rate
$0
$0
$13,631
$1,098
$4,341
$350
$2,786
$224
$22,308
$1,798
a. Because EPA estimated non-use benefits qualitatively, the monetary value of benefits includes only use values.
b Since the potentially regulated facilities in the South Atlantic region withdraw less than 50 MGD, none of the
facilities in this region would be required to install technology to comply with this option and thus, no I&E reductions
are expected for these facilities.
0 Values for a given year in the table are not discounted. Total present values of benefits are discounted with the
corresponding rate.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to
2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period.
e Denotes a positive value less than $500.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
11-8
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits
Chapter II
Table 11-5: Time Profile of Mean Total Use Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies"
(thousands; 2004$)a
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
California"
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
North
Atlantic
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$oe
$1
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
$4
Mid-
Atlantic
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$9
$20
$76
$102
$110
$116
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$108
$97
South
Atlantic15
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Gulf of
Mexico
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$106
$213
$851
$958
$1,011
$1,064
$1,064
$1,064
$1,064
$1,064
$1,064
$1,064
$1,064
$1,064
$1,064
$1,064
$1,064
$1,064
$1,064
$1,064
$1,064
$1,064
$1,064
$1,064
$1,064
$1,064
$1,064
$1,064
$1,064
$1,064
$958
$851
$213
Great
Lakes
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19
$38
$172
$210
$337
$366
$376
$386
$386
$386
$386
$386
$386
$386
$386
$386
$386
$386
$386
$386
$386
$386
$386
$386
$386
$386
$386
$386
$386
$386
$367
$348
$214
$176
Inland
$0
$0
$0
$3
$20
$52
$142
$163
$203
$215
$218
$221
$221
$221
$221
$221
$221
$221
$221
$221
$221
$221
$221
$221
$221
$221
$221
$221
$221
$221
$221
$221
$221
$218
$201
$169
$78
$58
Option
National
Total
$0
$0
$0
$3
$39
$197
$536
$1,245
$1,575
$1,698
$1,772
$1,790
$1,792
$1,792
$1,792
$1,792
$1,792
$1,792
$1,792
$1,792
$1,792
$1,792
$1,792
$1,792
$1,792
$1,792
$1,792
$1,792
$1,792
$1,792
$1,792
$1,792
$1,792
$1,789
$1,753
$1,595
$1,256
$547
11-9
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits
Chapter II
Table 11-5: Time Profile of Mean Total Use Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies"
(thousands; 2004$)a
North Mid- South
Year California15 Atlantic Atlantic Atlantic15
2045
2046
2047
2048
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4
$1
$oe
$oe
$41
$15
$7
$1
$0
$0
$0
$0
Gulf of
Mexico
$106
$53
$0
$0
Great
Lakes
$49
$20
$10
$0
Inland
$17
$5
$3
$0
Option
National
Total
$217
$94
$20
$2
Evaluated at 0% (Le., undiscounted)
Present Value0
Annualized Value.d
Present Value0
Annualized Valued
Present Value0
Annualized Valued
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$134
$4
$69
$4
$32
$3
$3,510
$117
Evaluated at 3%
$1,849
$94
Evaluated at 7%
$889
$72
$0
$0
$31,923
$1,064
$11,568
$386
$6,623
$221
$53,757
$1,792
Discount Rate
$0
$0
$17,451
$890
$6,324
$323
$3,693
$188
$29,386
$1,499
Discount Rate
$0
$0
$8,794
$709
$3,191
$257
$1,912
$154
$14,817
$1,194
a. Because EPA estimated non-use benefits qualitatively, the monetary value of benefits includes only use values.
b Since the potentially regulated facilities in the California and South Atlantic regions withdraw less than 200 MGD,
none of the facilities in these regions would be required to install technology to comply with this option and thus, no
I&E reductions are expected for these facilities.
0 Values for a given year in the table are not discounted. Total present values of benefits are discounted with the
corresponding rate.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to
2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period.
e Denotes a positive value less than $500.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
11-10
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits
Chapter II
Table 11-6:
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
Time Profile of Mean Total
California"
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
North
Atlantic
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1
$3
$10
$12
$15
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$16
$14
$7
Use Benefits for the "100
(thousands; 2004$)a
Mid-
Atlantic
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$9
$20
$76
$102
$110
$116
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$117
$108
$97
South
Atlantic15
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
MGD for
Gulf of
Mexico
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$165
$330
$1,320
$1,484
$1,567
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,649
$1,484
$1,320
$330
Certain
Great
Lakes
$0
$0
$0
$3
$28
$66
$223
$267
$403
$435
$445
$456
$456
$456
$456
$456
$456
$456
$456
$456
$456
$456
$456
$456
$456
$456
$456
$456
$456
$456
$456
$456
$456
$453
$428
$390
$233
$189
Waterbodies
Inland0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
" Option
National
Total
$0
$0
$0
$3
$28
$232
$564
$1,618
$1,976
$2,120
$2,221
$2,238
$2,239
$2,239
$2,239
$2,239
$2,239
$2,239
$2,239
$2,239
$2,239
$2,239
$2,239
$2,239
$2,239
$2,239
$2,239
$2,239
$2,239
$2,239
$2,239
$2,239
$2,239
$2,237
$2,212
$2,007
$1,675
$622
11-11
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits
Chapter II
Table 11-6: Time Profile of Mean Total Use Benefits for the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
(thousands; 2004$)a
North Mid-
Year California15 Atlantic Atlantic
2045
2046
2047
2048
Present Value.d
Annualized Value6
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5 $41
$2 $15
$0f $7
$0f $1
South
Atlantic15
$0
$0
$0
$0
Gulf of
Mexico
$165
$82
$0
$0
Evaluated at 0% (i.e., undiscounted)
$509 $3,510 $0 $49,483
$17 $117
$0
$1,649
Great
Lakes
$52
$21
$10
$0
$13,675
$456
Inland0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
National
Total
$263
$119
$18
$2
$67,177
$2,239
Evaluated at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value.d
Annualized Value6
Present Valued
Annualized Value6
$0
$0
$0
$0
$274 $1,849
$14 $94
Evaluated at
$136 $889
$11 $72
$0
$0
$27,050
$1,380
$7,513
$383
$0
$0
$36,687
$1,872
7% Discount Rate
$0
$0
$13,631
$1,098
$3,816
$308
$0
$0
$18,472
$1,489
a. Because EPA estimated non-use benefits qualitatively, the monetary value of benefits includes only use values.
b Since the potentially regulated facilities in the California and South Atlantic regions withdraw less than 100 MGD,
none of the facilities in these regions would be required to install technology to comply with this option and thus, no
I&E reductions are expected for these facilities.
°. None of the facilities in the Inland region would be required to install technology to comply with the 100 MGD
CWB option. Thus, no I&E reductions are expected at the potentially regulated facilities in the Inland region.
d Values for a given year in the table are not discounted. Total present values of benefits are discounted with the
corresponding rate.
6 Annualized benefits represent the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to
2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period.
f Denotes a positive value less than $500.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
11-4 National Benefits from Eliminating and Reducing I&E Losses
EPA used the profiles of benefits, by region, to calculate a total present value of benefits and then to calculate a
constant annual equivalent value (annualized value) of the present value. EPA calculated present value and
annualized value using two discount rate values: a real rate of 3% and a real rate of 7%. EPA estimated mean
values, as well as lower and upper bound values reflecting uncertainty in the recreational benefits estimates.
Tables 11-7,11-8,11-9, and 11-10 present these results, for each region and for the nation as a whole. Because
EPA did not estimate non-use benefits quantitatively, the monetized benefits presented in these tables reflect only
use values..4
4. Use values include commercial and recreational fishing benefits from reduced I&E. See Chapter A6 of this report
for a detailed description of the ecological benefits from reduced I&E.
n-n
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits Chapter II
Table 11-7 shows that the total annual national value of fishery resources lost to I&E (i.e., benefits of eliminating
baseline I&E losses at Phase III facilities) includes $1.3 million in commercial fishing losses, $6.4 million in
recreational fishing losses, and an unknown amount in foregone non-use benefits (2004$, discounted at 3%). The
total use value of fishery resources lost is $7.7 million per year, with lower and upper bounds of $5.0 million and
$12.6 million, respectively (discounted at 3%). Discounted at 7%, the total annual national value of fishery
resources lost to I&E includes $1.3 million in commercial fishing losses, $6.1 million in recreational fishing
losses, and an unknown amount in foregone non-use benefits. The total use value of fishery resources lost,
discounted at 7%, is $7.3 million per year, with lower and upper bounds of $4.8 million and $12.0 million,
respectively. Total monetized losses are greatest in the Gulf of Mexico region. More detailed discussions of the
valuation of recreational and commercial fishing losses under the baseline conditions in each region are provided
in Parts B through H of this document.
Tables 11-8,11-9 and 11-10 present EPA's estimates of the national and regional use benefits of reducing I&E
under each of the regulatory analysis options (2004$, discounted at 3% and 7%). The national value of these
reductions in I&E losses, evaluated at a 3% discount rate, are as follows:
>• the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option results in national use benefits of $2.3 million per year, with
lower and upper bounds of $1.4 million and $3.8 million (see Table 11-8);
>• the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option results in national use benefits of $1.5 million per year, with
lower and upper bounds of $1.0 million and $2.5 million (see Table 11-9); and
>• the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option results in national use benefits of $1.9 million per year,
with lower and upper bounds of $1.2 million and $3.1 million (see Table 11-10).
Evaluated at a 7% discount rate, the national use benefits of the regulatory analysis options are somewhat smaller:
>• the 50 MGD All option results in national use benefits of $ 1.8 million per year, with lower and upper
bounds of $1.1 million and $3.0 million (see Table 11-8);
>• the 200 MGD All option results in national use benefits of $ 1.2 million per year, with lower and upper
bounds of $0.8 million and $2.0 million (see Table 11-9); and
>• the 100 MGD CWB option results in national use benefits of $1.5 million per year, with lower and upper
bounds of $1.0 million and $2.5 million (see Table 11-10).
The majority of the value of use benefits is attributable to benefits to recreational anglers from improved catch
rates. As shown in Tables 11-8,11-9, and 11-10, use benefits are largest in the Gulf of Mexico for the "50 MGD
for All Waterbodies," "200 MGD for All Waterbodies," and the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" options.
More detailed discussions of regional benefits under each option are provided in Parts B through H of this report.
11-13
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits
Chapter II
Table 11-7: Summary
of Use Benefits
from Eliminating
Baseline I&E at Potentially
Annualized Use Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E
Region
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland0
National Total
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland0
National Total
Commercial
Fishing
$0-$54
$0-$1
$0-$84
$0-$93
$0-$990
$0-$97
n/a
$1,320
$0-$50
$0-$1
$0-$78
$0-$87
$0-$953
$0-$94
n/a
$1,263
Regulated
(thousands
Recreational Fishing
Low
$42
$26
$142
$769
$1,255
$786
$670
$3,689
$39
$24
$131
$712
$1,209
$757
$645
$3,517
Mean
Evaluated at a
$81
$50
$279
$1,246
$2,356
$1,145
$1,208
$6,365
Evaluated at a
$75
$46
$258
$1,155
$2,269
$1,103
$1,164
$6,070
High
3% Discount Rate
$155
$95
$569
$2,042
$4,544
$1,679
$2,194
$11,278
7% Discount Rate
$143
$88
$527
$1,893
$4,376
$1,617
$2,113
$10,757
Low
$97
$27
$226
$862
$2,245
$883
$670
$5,009
$89
$25
$209
$799
$2,162
$850
$645
$4,780
Phase III Facilities
; 2004$)."
Total Use Value*
Mean
$135
$51
$363
$1,340
$3,346
$1,242
$1,208
$7,685
$125
$47
$336
$1,242
$3,222
$1,196
$1,164
$7,332
High
$209
$97
$653
$2,136
$5,533
$1,776
$2,194
$12,597
$194
$90
$605
$1,980
$5,328
$1,710
$2,113
$12,020
a. All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and
then annualized over a thirty year period.
b The total monetizable value of I&E reductions includes use benefits only. EPA evaluated non-use benefits qualitatively. A range of recreational fishing benefits
is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique to estimated the 95th and 5th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the meta-
analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a region- and species-specific range of gross revenue, as explained in Chapter A4 of this report. To
calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, and high), the high end value for commercial fishing benefits is added to the low, mean, and high
values for recreational fishing benefits, respectively.
°. No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishing analysis.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
11-14
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits
Chapter II
Region
Table 11-8: Summary of Use
Annualized Commercial
Fishing Benefits
Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies"
Annualized Recreational Fishing Benefits
Low Mean High
Option (thousands;
2004$)a
Total Annualized Use
Low
Mean
Benefits13
High
Evaluated at a 3% Discount Rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic"
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland"
National Total
$0-$8
$0-$0e
$0-$18
$0
$0-$283
$0-$11
n/a
$0-$321
$11 $21 $40
$9 $17 $33
$48 $96 $198
$0 $0 $0
$589 $1,097 $2,101
$292 $425 $624
$152 $275 $501
$1,101 $1,931 $3,496
$19
$9
$67
$0
$872
$302
$152
$1,421
$29
$17
$115
$0
$1,380
$436
$275
$2,251
$48
$33
$216
$0
$2,384
$634
$501
$3,816
Evaluated at a 7% Discount Rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic0
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd
National Total
$0-$7
$0-$0e
$0-$14
$0
$0-$225
$0-$9
n/a
$0-$255
$9 $17 $33
$7 $13 $25
$37 $74 $152
$0 $0 $0
$468 $873 $1,672
$234 $341 $500
$124 $224 $409
$880 $1,543 $2,792
$16
$7
$51
$0
$694
$243
$124
$1,135
$24
$13
$88
$0
$1,098
$350
$224
$1,798
$39
$25
$166
$0
$1,898
$509
$409
$3,047
a. All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and
then annualized over a thirty year period.
b The total monetizable value of I&E reductions includes use benefits only. EPA evaluated non-use benefits qualitatively. A range of recreational fishing
benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique to estimated the 95th and 5th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the
meta-analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a region- and species-specific range of gross revenue, as explained in Chapter A4 of this
report. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, and high), the high end value for commercial fishing benefits is added to the low, mean,
and high values for recreational fishing benefits, respectively.
°. Since the potentially regulated facilities in the South Atlantic region withdraw less than 50 MGD, none of the facilities in this region would be required to
install technology to comply with this option and thus, no I&E reductions are expected for these facilities.
d No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishing analysis.
e Denotes a positive value less than $500.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
11-15
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits
Chapter II
Region
Table 11-9: Summary of Use
Annualized Commercial
Fishing Benefits
Benefits of the"
Annualized
Low
200 MGD for All Waterbodies"
Recreational
Mean
Fishing Benefits
High
Option (thousands;
2004$)a
Total Annualized Use
Low
Mean
Benefits13
High
Evaluated at a 3% Discount Rate
California0
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic"
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland"
National Total
$0
$0-$0e
$0-$15
$0
$0-$188
$0-$8
n/a
$0-$211
$0
$2
$40
$0
$382
$216
$104
$744
$0
$3
$80
$0
$702
$315
$188
$1,288
$0
$7
$164
$0
$1,328
$462
$343
$2,303
$0
$2
$55
$0
$570
$224
$104
$955
$0
$4
$94
$0
$890
$323
$188
$1,499
$0
$7
$179
$0
$1,516
$470
$343
$2,514
Evaluated at a 7% Discount Rate
California0
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic0
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd
National Total
$0
$o-$oe
$0-$11
$0
$0-$150
$0-$6
n/a
$0-$167
$0
$1
$30
$0
$304
$172
$85
$593
$0
$3
$60
$0
$559
$251
$154
$1,027
$0
$5
$125
$0
$1,057
$368
$280
$1,835
$0
$1
$42
$0
$454
$178
$85
$760
$0
$3
$72
$0
$709
$257
$154
$1,194
$0
$5
$136
$0
$1,207
$374
$280
$2,002
a. All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and
then annualized over a thirty year period.
b The total monetizable value of I&E reductions includes use benefits only. EPA evaluated non-use benefits qualitatively. A range of recreational fishing
benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique to estimated the 95th and 5th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the
meta-analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a region- and species-specific range of gross revenue, as explained in Chapter A4 of this
report. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, and high), the high end value for commercial fishing benefits is added to the low, mean,
and high values for recreational fishing benefits, respectively.
0 Since the potentially regulated facilities in the California and South Atlantic regions withdraw less than 200 MGD, none of the facilities in this region would be
required to install technology to comply with this option and thus, no I&E reductions are expected for these facilities.
d No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishing analysis.
e Denotes a positive value less than $500.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
11-16
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits
Chapter II
Table 11-10: Summary of Use Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option (thousands; 2004$)a
Region
Annualized Commercial
Fishing Benefits
Annualized Recreational Fishing Benefits
Total Annualized Use Benefits
Low
Mean
High
Low
Mean
High
Evaluated at a 3% Discount Rate
California0
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic0
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland46
National Total
$0
$0-$0f
$0-$15
$0
$0-$283
$0-$9
n/a
$0-$308
$0
$7
$40
$0
$589
$257
$0
$892
$0
$14
$80
$0
$1,097
$374
$0
$1,564
$0
$27
$164
$0
$2,101
$548
$0
$2,840
$0
$7
$55
$0
$872
$266
$0
$1,200
$0
$14
$94
$0
$1,380
$383
$0
$1,872
$0
$27
$179
$0
$2,384
$558
$0
$3,148
Evaluated at a 7% Discount Rate
California0
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic0
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland"'6
National Total
$0
$0-$0f
$0-$11
$0
$0-$225
$0-$7
n/a
$0-$244
$0
$6
$30
$0
$468
$206
$0
$710
$0
$11
$60
$0
$873
$300
$0
$1,244
$0
$21
$125
$0
$1,672
$440
$0
$2,258
$0
$6
$42
$0
$694
$213
$0
$955
$0
$11
$72
$0
$1,098
$308
$0
$1,489
$0
$21
$136
$0
$1,898
$447
$0
$2,502
a All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and
then annualized over a thirty year period.
b The total monetizable value of I&E reductions includes use benefits only. EPA evaluated non-use benefits qualitatively. A range of recreational fishing
benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique to estimated the 95th and 5th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the
meta-analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a region- and species-specific range of gross revenue, as explained in Chapter A4 of this
report. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, and high), the high end value for commercial fishing benefits is added to the low, mean,
and high values for recreational fishing benefits, respectively.
0 Since the potentially regulated facilities in the California and South Atlantic regions withdraw less than 100 MGD, none of the facilities in this region would be
required to install technology to comply with this option and thus, no I&E reductions are expected for these facilities.
d None of the facilities in the Inland region would be required to install technology to comply with the 100 MGD CWB option. Thus, no I&E reductions are
expected at the potentially regulated facilities in the Inland region.
e No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishing analysis.
f Denotes a positive value less than $500.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
11-17
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits
Appendix II
Appendix II: National Benefits Under
Supplemental Policy Options
Introduction
This appendix supplements Chapter II by presenting
EPA's estimates of the national commercial and
recreational benefits of eight supplemental options
that EPA evaluated for the purposes of comparison:
Appendix Contents
11 -1 Summary of Expected Reductions in I&E 11 -1
11-2 Total Annualized Monetary Value of
National Losses and Benefits 11-4
>• "Electric Generators 2-50 MOD I-only
Everywhere" option,
> "Electric Generators 2-50 MOD I&E like Phase II" option,
*• "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option,
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" option,
•> "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" option,
>• "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" option,
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere" option, and
>• "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I&E Everywhere" option.
Greater detail on the methods and data used in the regional analyses is provided in the previous chapters of this
report. See Chapters Al and A2 for a discussion of the methods used to estimate I&E, and Chapters A3 through
A9 for discussion of the methods used to estimate the value of I&E losses and the benefits of the policy options.
The results of the regional analyses are presented in Parts B through H of this report. Chapter II presents
estimates of national baseline losses and discusses methods used to calculate national benefits under each of the
regulatory analysis options.
11-1 Summary of Expected Reductions in I&E
Table 11-1 presents the number of facilities with technology requirements under the supplemental evaluated
options, by region, and EPA's estimates of the percentage by which I&E will be reduced under each option. The
table also presents estimates of regional and national fishery losses prevented under each option, expressed as
age-1 equivalents and fishery yield.
App. ll-l
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits
Appendix II
Table 11-1: Expected Reductions in I&E for Existing Phase III Facilities by Option
Region
Number of
Facilities
Installing
Technology
Prevented
Prevented Age-1 Foregone Fishery
Reduction in Reduction in Equivalent Losses Yield
Impingement Entrainment (thousands) (thousands; Ibs)
"Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" Option
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic3
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
National total
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic3
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
National total
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic3
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
National total
0
0
1
0
0
3
14
19
"Electric
0
0
1
0
0
3
15
20
"Electric
0
0
2
0
0
3
16
22
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
1%
1%
Generators 2-50
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
1%
1%
Generators 2-50
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
MGD I&E like Phase II
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0
0
27
0
0
303
473
802
" Option
0
0
27
0
0
327
509
863
0
0
3
0
0
3
3
9
0
0
3
0
0
4
4
10
MGD I&E Everywhere" Option
0%
0%
2%
0%
0%
1%
1%
"Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere"
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic3
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
National total
3
0
3
0
4
16
126
152
37%
0%
4%
0%
3%
2%
8%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0
0
1,480
0
0
331
802
2,610
Option
10
0
150
0
543
698
3,320
4,720
0
0
6
0
0
4
8
18
0
0
18
0
48
7
21
94
App. 11-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits
Appendix II
Table 11-1: Expected Reductions in I&E for Existing Phase III Facilities by Option
Region
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic3
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
National total
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic3
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
National total
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic3
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
National total
Number of
Facilities Prevented Age-1
Installing Reduction in Reduction in Equivalent Losses
Technology Impingement Entrainment (thousands)
"Manufacturers
3
0
3
0
4
16
140
166
"Manufacturers
3
0
3
0
4
16
142
168
"Manufacturers
1
0
2
0
5
15
74
97
2-50 MGD I&E
37%
0%
4%
0%
3%
2%
8%
2-50 MGD I&E
37%
0%
4%
0%
3%
2%
8%
like Phase II"
28%
0%
3%
0%
2%
1%
2%
Everywhere"
31%
0%
3%
0%
2%
2%
7%
50+ MGD I-only Everywhere"
37%
0%
23%
0%
51%
42%
38%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Option
481
0
2,310
0
855
732
3,660
8,040
Option
534
0
2,310
0
855
764
4,880
9,340
Option
10
0
1,000
0
10,400
11,700
16,200
39,400
Prevented
Foregone Fishery
Yield
(thousands; Ibs)
34
0
22
0
162
8
27
252
38
0
22
0
162
9
44
275
0
0
118
0
917
109
105
1,250
App. 11-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits Appendix II
Table 11-1: Expected Reductions in I&E for Existing Phase III Facilities by Option
Number of Prevented
Facilities Prevented Age-1 Foregone Fishery
Installing Reduction in Reduction in Equivalent Losses Yield
Region Technology Impingement Entrainment (thousands) (thousands; Ibs)
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic3
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
National total
"Manufacturers
1
4
3
0
7
18
94
127
50+ MGD
37%
0%
23%
0%
51%
42%
38%
I&E Everywhere"
28%
40%
53%
0%
58%
46%
37%
Option
474
910
44,500
0
19,400
13,400
24,600
103,000
33
4
212
0
4,200
161
228
4,840
a. Since the potentially regulated facilities in the South Atlantic region withdraw less than 50 MGD and are projected
to close in the baseline, no I&E reductions are expected for these facilities.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
11-2 Total Annualized Monetary Value of National Losses and Benefits
Tables 11-3 through 11-10 present EPA's estimates of the value of national and regional reductions in I&E under
the supplemental options analyzed for the final rule. The tables show that, for these options, benefits to
recreational anglers account for the majority of use benefits. National use benefits are largest in the Gulf of
Mexico, Great Lakes, and Inland regions. More detailed discussions of regional benefits under each option are
provided in Parts B through H of this report.
App. 11-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits
Appendix II
Table 11-2: Summary
of Use Benefits
from Eliminating Baseline
I&E at Potentially
Annualized Use Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E
Region
Commercial
Fishing
Low
Recreational Fishing
Mean
High
Regulated
(thousands
Low
Phase III Facilities
; 2004$)a
Total Use Value*
Mean
High
Evaluated at a 3% discount rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland0
National total
$0-$54
$0-$1
$0-$84
$0-$93
$0-$990
$0-$97
n/a
$0-$1,320
$42
$26
$142
$769
$1,255
$786
$670
$3,689
$81
$50
$279
$1,246
$2,356
$1,145
$1,208
$6,365
$155
$95
$569
$2,042
$4,544
$1,679
$2,194
$11,278
$97
$27
$226
$862
$2,245
$883
$670
$5,009
$135
$51
$363
$1,340
$3,346
$1,242
$1,208
$7,685
$209
$97
$653
$2,136
$5,533
$1,776
$2,194
$12,597
Evaluated at a 7% discount rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland0
National total
$0-$50
$0-$1
$0-$78
$0-$87
$0-$953
$0-$94
n/a
$0-$ 1,263
$39
$24
$131
$712
$1,209
$757
$645
$3,517
$75
$46
$258
$1,155
$2,269
$1,103
$1,164
$6,070
$143
$88
$527
$1,893
$4,376
$1,617
$2,113
$10,757
$89
$25
$209
$799
$2,162
$850
$645
$4,780
$125
$47
$336
$1,242
$3,222
$1,196
$1,164
$7,332
$194
$90
$605
$1,980
$5,328
$1,710
$2,113
$12,020
a. All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and
then annualized over a thirty year period.
b The total monetizable value of I&E reductions includes use benefits only. EPA evaluated non-use benefits qualitatively. A range of recreational fishing benefits
is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique to estimated the 95th and 5th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the meta-
analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a region- and species-specific range of gross revenue, as explained in Chapter A4 of this report. To
calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, and high), the high end value for commercial fishing benefits is added to the low, mean, and high
values for recreational fishing benefits, respectively.
°. No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishing analysis.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
APP. 11-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits
Appendix II
Table 11-3: Summary of Use Benefits of the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" Option (thousands; 2004$)a
Region
Annualized
Commercial Fishing
Benefits
Annualized Recreational Fishing Benefits
Total Annualized Use Benefits13
Low
Mean
High
Low
Mean
High
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic"
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd
National total
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic"
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd
National total
$0
$0
$o-$oe
$0
$0
$o-$oe
n/a
$o-$oe
$0
$0
$o-$oe
$0
$0
$0-$0e
n/a
$o-$oe
Evaluated at a
$0
$0
$oe
$0
$0
$5
$3
$8
Evaluated at a
$0
$0
$oe
$0
$0
$4
$3
$7
3% discount rate
$0
$0
$1
$0
$0
$7
$6
$13
7% discount rate
$0
$0
$0e
$0
$0
$6
$5
$11
$0
$0
$1
$0
$0
$10
$10
$22
$0
$0
$1
$0
$0
$8
$8
$17
$0
$0
$oe
$0
$0
$5
$3
$9
$0
$0
$0e
$0
$0
$4
$3
$7
$0
$0
$1
$0
$0
$7
$6
$14
$0
$0
$1
$0
$0
$6
$5
$11
$0
$0
$1
$0
$0
$11
$10
$22
$0
$0
$1
$0
$0
$8
$8
$18
a. All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and
then annualized over a thirty year period.
b The total monetizable value of I&E reductions includes use benefits only. EPA evaluated non-use benefits qualitatively. A range of recreational fishing
benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique to estimated the 95th and 5th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the
meta-analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a region- and species-specific range of gross revenue, as explained in Chapter A4 of this
report. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, and high), the high end value for commercial fishing benefits is added to the low, mean,
and high values for recreational fishing benefits, respectively.
°. Since the potentially regulated facilities in the South Atlantic region do not include small electric generators, no I&E reductions are expected for these
facilities.
d No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishing analysis.
e Denotes a positive value less than $500.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
APP. 11-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits
Appendix II
Table 11-4: Summary of Use Benefits of the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" Option (thousands; 2004$)a
Region
Annualized
Commercial
Fishing Benefits
Annualized Recreational Fishing Benefits
Total Annualized Use Benefits13
Low
Mean
High
Low
Mean
High
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic"
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd
National total
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic"
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd
National total
$0
$0
$o-$oe
$0
$0
$o-$oe
n/a
$o-$oe
$0
$0
$o-$oe
$0
$0
$0-$0e
n/a
$o-$oe
Evaluated at a
$0
$0
$oe
$0
$0
$6
$4
$10
Evaluated at a
$0
$0
$oe
$0
$0
$5
$3
$8
3% discount rate
$0
$0
$1
$0
$0
$9
$7
$16
7% discount rate
$0
$0
$0e
$0
$0
$7
$5
$13
$0
$0
$1
$0
$0
$14
$12
$27
$0
$0
$1
$0
$0
$11
$10
$21
$0
$0
$oe
$0
$0
$7
$4
$11
$0
$0
$oe
$0
$0
$5
$3
$9
$0
$0
$1
$0
$0
$10
$7
$17
$0
$0
$1
$0
$0
$8
$5
$13
$0
$0
$1
$0
$0
$14
$12
$27
$0
$0
$1
$0
$0
$11
$10
$22
a. All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and
then annualized over a thirty year period.
b The total monetizable value of I&E reductions includes use benefits only. EPA evaluated non-use benefits qualitatively. A range of recreational fishing
benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique to estimated the 95th and 5th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the
meta-analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a region- and species-specific range of gross revenue, as explained in Chapter A4 of this
report. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, and high), the high end value for commercial fishing benefits is added to the low, mean,
and high values for recreational fishing benefits, respectively.
°. Since the potentially regulated facilities in the South Atlantic region do not include small electric generators, no I&E reductions are expected for these
facilities.
d No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishing analysis.
e Denotes a positive value less than $500.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
APP. 11-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits
Appendix II
Table 11-5: Summary of Use Benefits of the "Electric Generators 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" Option (thousands; 2004$)a
Region
Annualized
Commercial
Fishing Benefits
Annualized Recreational Fishing Benefits
Total Annualized Use Benefits13
Low
Mean
High
Low
Mean
High
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic"
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd
National total
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic"
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd
National total
$0
$0
$1
$0
$0
$o-$oe
n/a
$0-$1
$0
$0
$o-$oe
$0
$0
$0-$0e
n/a
$0-$1
Evaluated at a
$0
$0
$2
$0
$0
$7
$8
$16
Evaluated at a
$0
$0
$1
$0
$0
$5
$6
$13
3% discount rate
$0
$0
$3
$0
$0
$10
$14
$26
7% discount rate
$0
$0
$2
$0
$0
$8
$11
$21
$0
$0
$6
$0
$0
$14
$25
$45
$0
$0
$5
$0
$0
$11
$21
$36
$0
$0
$2
$0
$0
$7
$8
$17
$0
$0
$2
$0
$0
$5
$6
$13
$0
$0
$4
$0
$0
$10
$14
$27
$0
$0
$3
$0
$0
$8
$11
$22
$0
$0
$7
$0
$0
$14
$25
$46
$0
$0
$5
$0
$0
$11
$21
$37
a. All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and
then annualized over a thirty year period.
b The total monetizable value of I&E reductions includes use benefits only. EPA evaluated non-use benefits qualitatively. A range of recreational fishing
benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique to estimated the 95th and 5th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the
meta-analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a region- and species-specific range of gross revenue, as explained in Chapter A4 of this
report. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, and high), the high end value for commercial fishing benefits is added to the low, mean,
and high values for recreational fishing benefits, respectively.
°. Since the potentially regulated facilities in the South Atlantic region do not include small electric generators, no I&E reductions are expected for these
facilities.
d No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishing analysis.
e Denotes a positive value less than $500.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
APP. 11-8
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits
Appendix II
Table 11-6: Summary of Use Benefits of the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I-only Everywhere" Option (thousands; 2004$)."
Region
Annualized
Commercial
Fishing Benefits
Annualized Recreational Fishing Benefits
Total Annualized Use Benefits13
Low
Mean
High
Low
Mean
High
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic"
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd
National total
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic"
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd
National total
$0-$0e
$0
$0-$1
$0
$0-$6
$0-$0e
n/a
$0-$7
$0-$0e
$0
$0-$1
$0
$0-$5
$0-$0e
n/a
$0-$6
Evaluated at a
$1
$0
$2
$0
$16
$12
$21
$51
Evaluated at a
$0e
$0
$2
$0
$13
$10
$17
$41
3% discount rate
$1
$0
$4
$0
$33
$17
$38
$93
7% discount rate
$1
$0
$3
$0
$26
$14
$30
$74
$2
$0
$8
$0
$70
$25
$70
$174
$2
$0
$6
$0
$56
$20
$55
$139
$1
$0
$3
$0
$22
$12
$21
$59
$0e
$0
$2
$0
$18
$10
$17
$47
$1
$0
$5
$0
$39
$17
$38
$100
$1
$0
$4
$0
$31
$14
$30
$80
$2
$0
$9
$0
$76
$25
$70
$181
$2
$0
$7
$0
$60
$21
$55
$144
a. All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and
then annualized over a thirty year period.
b The total monetizable value of I&E reductions includes use benefits only. EPA evaluated non-use benefits qualitatively. A range of recreational fishing
benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique to estimated the 95th and 5th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the
meta-analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a region- and species-specific range of gross revenue, as explained in Chapter A4 of this
report. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, and high), the high end value for commercial fishing benefits is added to the low, mean,
and high values for recreational fishing benefits, respectively.
°. Since the potentially regulated facilities in the South Atlantic region are projected to close in the baseline, no I&E reductions are expected for these facilities.
d No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishing analysis.
e Denotes a positive value less than $500.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
APP. 11-9
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits
Appendix II
Table 11-7: Summary of Use Benefits of the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E like Phase II" Option (thousands; 2004$)a
Region
Annualized
Commercial
Fishing Benefits
Annualized Recreational Fishing Benefits
Total Annualized Use Benefits13
Low
Mean
High
Low
Mean
High
Evaluated at a 3% discount rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic"
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland"
National total
$0-$8
$0
$0-$2
$0
$0-$12
$0-$0e
N/a
$0-$22
$10
$0
$4
$0
$26
$14
$26
$79
$19
$0
$7
$0
$49
$20
$46
$142
$37
$0
$15
$0
$96
$29
$85
$262
$18
$0
$5
$0
$38
$14
$26
$101
$27
$0
$9
$0
$61
$21
$46
$164
$44
$0
$17
$0
$108
$30
$85
$284
Evaluated at a 7% discount rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic'
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd
National total
$0-$6
$0
$0-$1
$0
$0-$9
$0-$0e
n/a
$0-$17
$7
$0
$3
$0
$21
$11
$20
$63
$14
$0
$6
$0
$39
$17
$37
$113
$27
$0
$12
$0
$77
$24
$67
$207
$13
$0
$4
$0
$30
$12
$20
$79
$20
$0
$7
$0
$49
$17
$37
$129
$33
$0
$13
$0
$86
$25
$67
$224
a All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and
then annualized over a thirty year period.
b The total monetizable value of I&E reductions includes use benefits only. EPA evaluated non-use benefits qualitatively. A range of recreational fishing
benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique to estimated the 95th and 5th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the
meta-analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a region- and species-specific range of gross revenue, as explained in Chapter A4 of this
report. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, and high), the high end value for commercial fishing benefits is added to the low, mean,
and high values for recreational fishing benefits, respectively.
°. Since the potentially regulated facilities in the South Atlantic region are projected to close in the baseline, no I&E reductions are expected for these facilities.
d No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishing analysis.
e Denotes a positive value less than $500.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
APP. 11-10
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits
Appendix II
Table 11-8: Summary of Use Benefits of the "Manufacturers 2-50 MGD I&E Everywhere" Option (thousands; 2004$)a
Region
Annualized
Commercial
Fishing Benefits
Annualized Recreational Fishing Benefits
Total Annualized Use Benefits13
Low
Mean
High
Low
Mean
High
Evaluated at a 3% discount rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic"
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd
National total
$0-$8
$0
$0-$2
$0
$0-$12
$0-$1
n/a
$0-$22
$11
$0
$4
$0
$26
$16
$42
$99
$21
$0
$7
$0
$49
$23
$76
$177
$41
$0
$15
$0
$96
$34
$138
$324
$20
$0
$5
$0
$38
$16
$42
$121
$30
$0
$9
$0
$61
$24
$76
$199
$49
$0
$17
$0
$108
$35
$138
$346
Evaluated at a 7% discount rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic'
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd
National total
$0-$6
$0
$0-$1
$0
$0-$9
$0-$0e
n/a
$0-$17
$8
$0
$3
$0
$21
$13
$33
$78
$16
$0
$6
$0
$39
$19
$60
$140
$30
$0
$12
$0
$77
$28
$109
$256
$14
$0
$4
$0
$30
$14
$33
$96
$22
$0
$7
$0
$49
$20
$60
$157
$36
$0
$13
$0
$86
$28
$109
$273
a. All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and
then annualized over a thirty year period.
b The total monetizable value of I&E reductions includes use benefits only. EPA evaluated non-use benefits qualitatively. A range of recreational fishing
benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique to estimated the 95th and 5th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the
meta-analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a region- and species-specific range of gross revenue, as explained in Chapter A4 of this
report. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, and high), the high end value for commercial fishing benefits is added to the low, mean,
and high values for recreational fishing benefits, respectively.
°. Since the potentially regulated facilities in the South Atlantic region are projected to close in the baseline, no I&E reductions are expected for these facilities.
d No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishing analysis.
e Denotes a positive value less than $500.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
APP. 11-11
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits
Appendix II
Table 11-9: Summary of Use Benefits of the "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I-only Everywhere" Option (thousands; 2004$)."
Region
Annualized
Commercial
Fishing Benefits
Annualized Recreational Fishing Benefits
Total Annualized Use Benefits13
Low
Mean
High
Low
Mean
High
Evaluated at a 3% discount rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic"
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd
National total
$0-$0e
$0
$0-$6
$0
$0-$115
$0-$7
n/a
$0-$128
$1
$0
$13
$0
$307
$190
$105
$616
$1
$0
$25
$0
$636
$276
$190
$1,129
$2
$0
$49
$0
$1,339
$403
$348
$2,142
$1
$0
$19
$0
$422
$197
$105
$744
$1
$0
$31
$0
$751
$283
$190
$1,257
$2
$0
$55
$0
$1,454
$410
$348
$2,270
Evaluated at a 7% discount rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic'
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd
National total
$0-$0e
$0
$0-$5
$0
$0-$92
$0-$5
n/a
$0-$102
$1
$0
$10
$0
$244
$151
$86
$491
$1
$0
$19
$0
$506
$219
$155
$900
$2
$0
$38
$0
$1,066
$319
$284
$1,709
$1
$0
$15
$0
$336
$156
$86
$593
$1
$0
$24
$0
$598
$224
$155
$1,002
$2
$0
$43
$0
$1,157
$324
$284
$1,811
a. All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and
then annualized over a thirty year period.
b The total monetizable value of I&E reductions includes use benefits only. EPA evaluated non-use benefits qualitatively. A range of recreational fishing
benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique to estimated the 95th and 5th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the
meta-analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a region- and species-specific range of gross revenue, as explained in Chapter A4 of this
report. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, and high), the high end value for commercial fishing benefits is added to the low, mean,
and high values for recreational fishing benefits, respectively.
°. Since the potentially regulated facilities in the South Atlantic region withdraw less than 50 MGD and are projected to close in the baseline, no I&E reductions
are expected for these facilities.
d No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishing analysis.
e Denotes a positive value less than $500.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
APP. 11-12
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part I: National Benefits
Appendix II
Table 11-10: Summary of Use Benefits of the "Manufacturers 50+ MGD I&E Everywhere" Option (thousands; 2004$)a
Region
Annualized
Commercial
Fishing Benefits
Annualized Recreational Fishing Benefits
Total Annualized Use Benefits13
Low
Mean
High
Low
Mean
High
Evaluated at a 3% discount rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic"
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd
National total
$0-$8
$0-$0e
$0-$18
$0
$0-$283
$0-$11
n/a
$0-$321
$11
$9
$48
$0
$589
$295
$221
$1,172
$21
$17
$96
$0
$1,097
$429
$399
$2,059
$40
$33
$198
$0
$2,101
$629
$725
$3,726
$19
$9
$67
$0
$872
$305
$221
$1,493
$29
$17
$115
$0
$1,380
$440
$399
$2,380
$48
$33
$216
$0
$2,384
$640
$725
$4,046
Evaluated at a 7% discount rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic'
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd
National total
$0-$7
$0-$0e
$0-$14
$0
$0-$225
$0-$8
n/a
$0-$255
$9
$7
$37
$0
$468
$236
$181
$939
$17
$13
$74
$0
$873
$345
$326
$1,648
$33
$25
$152
$0
$1,672
$505
$593
$2,980
$16
$7
$51
$0
$694
$245
$181
$1,194
$24
$13
$88
$0
$1,098
$353
$326
$1,903
$39
$25
$166
$0
$1,898
$514
$593
$3,235
a. All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and
then annualized over a thirty year period.
b The total monetizable value of I&E reductions includes use benefits only. EPA evaluated non-use benefits qualitatively. A range of recreational fishing
benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique to estimated the 95th and 5th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the
meta-analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a region- and species-specific range of gross revenue, as explained in Chapter A4 of this
report. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, and high), the high end value for commercial fishing benefits is added to the low, mean,
and high values for recreational fishing benefits, respectively.
°. Since the potentially regulated facilities in the South Atlantic region withdraw less than 50 MGD and are projected to close in the baseline, no I&E reductions
are expected for these facilities.
No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishing analysis.
e Denotes a positive value less than $500.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
APP. 11-13
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
References
Able, K.W. and M.P. Fahay. 1998. The First Year in the Life of Estuarine Fishes in the Middle Atlantic Bight.
Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.
Abt Associates. 2006. Development of Willingness to Pay Survey Instrument for Section 316(b) Phase III
Cooling Water Intake Structures. Memorandum to Julie Hewitt, OW/OST/EAD dated May 23, 2006. Abt
Associates, Inc., Cambridge, MA.
Agnello, R. 1989. The economic value of fishing success: An application of socioeconomic survey data. Fishery
Bulletin 87(l):223-232.
Alexander, S.J. 1995. Applying Random Utility Modeling to Recreational Fishing in Oregon: Effects of Forest
Management Alternatives on Steelhead Production in the Elk River Watershed. Oregon State University.
Allen, M.A. and T.J. Hassler. 1986. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal
Fishes and Invertebrates (Pacific Southwest) — Chinook Salmon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological
Report 82(11.49). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TREL-82-4. http: //www .nwrc. gov/publications/specintro .htm.
Accessed 7/03.
Anderson, L.G. 1980. Necessary components of economic surplus in fisheries economics. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:858-870.
Arrow, K., R. Solow, P. Portney, E. Learner, R. Radner, and H. Schuman. 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on
contingent valuation. Federal Register 58(10):4602-4614.
ASMFC. 200la. Interstate Fisheries Management Program: Atlantic Herring. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission. http://www.asmfc.org/Programs/Fish%20Mgnt/AHERRINGl.html. Accessed 2/12/01.
ASMFC. 200 Ib. Review of the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden. Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission.
http://www.asmfc.org/Programs/Fish%20Mgnt/2000%20FMP%20Reviews/menhaden2000 FMP.HTM.
Accessed 3/19/01.
Bartell, S.M. and K.R. Campbell. 2000. Ecological Risk Assessment of the Effects of the Incremental Increase of
Commercial Navigation Traffic (25, 50, 75, and 100 Percent Increase of 1992 Baseline Traffic) on Fish. ENV
Report 16. Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, Rock Island. July.
http://www.mvr.usace.army.mil/pdw/nav studv/env reports/ENVRPT 16.htm. Accessed 2000.
Bason, W.H. 1971. Ecology and early life history of striped bass, Morone saxatilis, in the Delaware Estuary.
Ichthyol. Assoc. Bulletin 4:112. Ichthyological Associates, Middletown, DE.
Bateman, I.J. and A.P. Jones. 2003. Contrasting conventional with multi-level modeling approaches to meta-
analysis: Expectation consistency in U.K. woodland recreation values. Land Economics 79(2):235-258.
Bateman, I.J., R.T. Carson, B. Day, M. Hanemann, N. Hanley, T. Hett, M. Jones-Lee, G. Loonies, S. Mourato, E.
Ozdemiroglu, D.W. Pierce, R. Sugden, and J. Swanson. 2002. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference
Surveys: A Manual. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA.
BEA. 1998. Bureau of Economic Analysis National Accounts Data: Gross Product by Industry.
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn2/gpoc.htm.
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Beauchamp, D.A., M.F. Shepard, and G.B. Pauley. 1983. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental
Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Pacific Northwest): Chinook Salmon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service FWS/OBS-82/11.6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TREL-82-4.
Beck, A.D. and the Committee on Entrainment. 1978. Cumulative effects: A field assessment. In Power Plant
Entrainment: A Biological Assessment, J.R. Schubel and B.C. Marcy, Jr. (eds.). Academic Press, New York,
pp. 189-210.
Bergstrom, J.C. and P. De Civita. 1999. Status of benefits transfer in the United States and Canada: A review.
Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 47(l):79-87.
Berman, M., S. Haley, and H. Kim. 1997. Estimating net benefits of reallocation: Discrete choice models of sport
and commercial fishing. Marine Resource Economics 12:307-327.
Berrens, R.P., O. Bergland, and R.M. Adams. 1993. Valuation issues in an urban recreational fishery: Spring
chinook salmon in Portland, Oregon. Journal of Leisure Research Vol 25.
Berrens, R.P., P. Ganderston, and C.L. Silva. 1996. Valuing the protection of minimum instream flows in New
Mexico. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 21(2): 294-3 09.
Bert, T.M., R.E. Warner, and L.D. Kessler. 1978. The Biology and Florida Fishery of the Stone Crab,Menippe
mercenaria (Say), with Emphasis on Southwest Florida. Technical Paper No. 9. State University System of
Florida Sea College Program, Gainesville. October.
Besedin, E., M. Ranson, and R. Johnston. 2004a. Findings from Focus Groups. Memo to U.S. EPA/OW,
Appendices I-III, Focus Group Transcripts.
Besedin, E., R. Johnston, M. Ranson, and J. Ahlen. 2005. Findings from 2005 Focus Groups Conducted Under
EPA ICR #2155.02.
Besedin, E., M. Mazzotta, D. Cacela, and L. Tudor. 2004b. Combining Ecological and Economic Analysis: An
Application to Valuation of Power Plant Impacts on Great Lakes Recreational Fishing. Paper Presented at
American Fisheries Society Meeting Symposium: Socio-economics and Extension: Empowering People in
Fisheries Conservation. August.
Bielsa, L.M., W.H. Murdich, and R.F. Labisky. 1983. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental
Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Florida) — Pink Shrimp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FWS/OBS-82/11.17. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TREL-82-4. http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/0098.pdf
Bigelow, H.B. and W.C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries
Bulletin, Volume 53. http://www.gma.org/fogm/. Accessed 8/03.
Bishop, R.C. and M.T. Holt. 2003. Estimating Post-Harvest Benefits from Increases in Commercial Fish Catches
with Implications for Remediation of Impingement and Entrainment Losses at Power Plants. Staff Paper No. 458.
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Madison.
Bockstael, N. and I. Strand. 1987. The effect of common sources of regression error on benefit estimates. Land
Economics February: 11-20.
Bockstael, N.E., K.E. McConnell, and I.E. Strand. 1989. Measuring the benefits of improvements in water
quality: The Chesapeake Bay. Marine Resource Economics 6:1-18.
Ref-2
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Bolz, G.R., J.P. Monaghan, Jr., K.L. Lang, R.W. Gregory, and J.M. Burnett. 2000. Proceedings of the Summer
Flounder Aging Workshop, 1-2 February 1999. Woods Hole, MA.
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/tm/tm 15 6/tm 156toc.htm. Accessed 12/02.
Boreman, J. 2000. Surplus production, compensation, and impact assessments of power plants. Environmental
Science & Policy 3:S445-S449.
Boreman, J. and C.P. Goodyear. 1981. Biases in the estimation of entrainment mortality. In Fifth National
Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement: Issues Associated with Impact Assessment, L.D. Jensen (ed.).
Ecological Analysts Inc., Sparks, MD, pp. 79-89.
Bowker, J.M. and J.R. Stoll. 1988. Use of dichotomous choice nonmarket methods to value the whooping crane
resource. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70(May):372-381.
Boyd, J., D. King, and L.A. Wainger. 2001. Compensation for lost ecosystem services: The need for benefit-based
transfer ratios and restoration criteria. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 20(2):393-412.
Boyle, K.J. and R.C. Bishop. 1987. Valuing wildlife in benefit-cost analyses: A case study involving endangered
species. Water Resources Research 23:943-950.
Boyle, K.J., B. Roach, and D.G. Waddington. 1998. 1996 Net Economic Values for Bass, Trout and Walleye
Fishing, Deer, Elk and Moose Hunting, and Wildlife Watching: Addendum to the 1996 National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Report 96-2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. August.
Breffle, W., E.R Morey, R.D. Rowe, D.M. Waldman, and S.M. Wytinck. 1999. Recreational Fishing Damages
from Fish Consumption Advisories in the Waters of Green Bay. Prepared by Stratus Consulting Inc., Boulder,
CO, for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of Interior.
November 1.
Brescia, C.J. 2002. Testimony of Christopher J. Brescia, President of Midwest Area River Coalition 2000, on
Proposals for a Water Resources Development Act of 2002, before the Committee on Environment and Public
Works, United States Senate. June 18, 2002. United States Senate. (June 18, 2002.)
Brown, R. and W. Kimmerer. 2002. Delta Smelt and CALFED's Environmental Water Account: A Summary of
the 2002 Delta Smelt Workshop.
http://calwater.ca.gov/Programs/Science/adobe_pdf/2002 Delta Smelt Workshop Summary.pdf Accessed
10/02.
Brown, T.C. 1993. Measuring Non-Use Value: A Comparison of Recent Contingent Valuation Studies. W-133
Sixth Interim Report. University of Georgia, Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics, Athens.
Buckley, J. 1989. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and
Invertebrates (North Atlantic). Rainbow Smelt. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.106). U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4.
Cailliet, G.M. 2000. Biological Characteristics of Nearshore Fishes of California. A Review of Existing
Knowledge and Proposed Additional Studies for the Pacific Ocean Interjurisdictional Fisheries Management Plan
Coordination and Development Project. Submitted to Mr. Al Didier. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.
August 31. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/lifehistories/index.html. Accessed 11/02.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2000a. How Old Are the Fish I'm Catching? California Department of
Fish and Game, http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/howold.pdf. Accessed 8/03.
Ref-3
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
California Department of Fish and Game. 2000b. Striped Bass Information Page. Age Your Fish.
http://www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/stripedbass/age your fish.asp. Accessed 6/03.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2002. Marine Sportfish Identification Pictures.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/msfindxl.html. Accessed 1/21/02.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2003. Summary of 2003 California Ocean Salmon Seasons.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/oceansalmon.html. Accessed 1/03.
Cameron, T.A. 1992. Combining contingent valuation and travel cost data for the valuation of non-market goods.
Land Economics 68:302-307.
Cameron, T.A. and D.D. Huppert. 1989. OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment
card interval data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 17:230-246.
Cameron, T.A. and M.D. James. 1987a. Efficient estimation methods for 'closed-ended' contingent valuation
surveys. The Review of Economics and Statistics 69(2):269-276.
Cameron, T.A. and M.D. James. 1987b. Estimating willingness to pay from survey data: An alternative pre-test-
market evaluation procedure. Journal of Marketing Research 24(4):389-395.
Carlander, K.D. 1969. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology: Life History Data on Freshwater Fishes of the
United States and Canada, Exclusive of the Perciformes. Iowa State University Press, Ames.
Carlander, K.D. 1977. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology, Volume 3: Life History Data on Ichthyopercid
and Percid Fishes of the United States and Canada. Iowa State University Press, Ames.
Carlander, K.D. 1997. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology: Life History Data on Icthyopercid and Percid
Fishes of the United States and Canada. Volume 3. Iowa State University Press, Ames.
Carroll, J.C. 1982. Seasonal abundance, size composition, and growth of rock crab, Cancer antennarius
Stimpson, off central California. Journal of Crustacean Biology 2(4):549-561.
Carson, R., M. Hanemann, and D. Steinberg. 1990. A discrete choice contingent valuation estimate of the values
of Kenai king salmon. Journal of Behavioral Economics Volume 19.
Carson, R.T. and R.C. Mitchell. 1993. The value of clean water: The public's willingness to pay for beatable,
fishable, and swimmable quality water. Water Resources Research 29(7):2445-2454.
Carson, R.T., N.E. Flores, and R.C. Mitchell. 1999. The theory and measurement of passive use value. In Valuing
Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and
Developing Countries, I.J. Bateman and K.G. Willis (eds). Oxford University Press, New York.
Carson, R.T., N.E. Flores, K.M. Martin, and J.L. Wright. 1996. Contingent valuation and revealed preference
methodologies: Comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Economics 72(1): 80-99.
Carson, R.T., W.M. Hanemann, R.J. Kopp, J.A. Krosnick, RC. Mitchell, S. Presser, P.A. Ruud, and V.K. Smith.
1994. Prospective Interim Lost Use Value due to DDT and PCB Contamination in the Southern California Bight.
Volume 2. Prepared for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by Natural Resources Damage
Assessment Inc., La Jolla, CA.
Carter, S.R. 1978. Macroinvertebrate Entrainment Study at Fort Calhoun Station. Fourth National Workshop on
Entrainment and Impingement. EA Communications, Melville, NY.
Ref-4
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
CCI Environmental Services. 1996. Zooplankton Entrainment Survival Study, Anclote Power Plant, Pasco
County, Florida. Prepared for Florida Power Corporation by CCI Environmental Services, Inc., Palmetto, FL.
CDWR. 1994. Effects of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project on Delta Smelt and Sacramento
Splittail. Biological Assessment prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Sacramento
Field Office by California Department of Water Resources and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Mid Pacific Region,
August.
Clayton, G., C. Cole, S. Murawski, and J. Parrish. 1978. Common Marine Fishes of Coastal Massachusetts.
Contribution No. 54 of the Massachusetts Cooperative Fishery Research Unit. University of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
Cohen, M.A. 1986. The costs and benefits of oil spill prevention and enforcement. Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management 13:167-188.
Colarusso, P. 2000. Winter Flounder Life History Information. Draft. From Phil Colarusso, EPA Region 1.
Brayton Point TAG Meeting, 11/17/00.
Collins, M.R. 1985. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and
Invertebrates (South Florida): Striped Mullet. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.34). U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4. http://www.nwrc.gov/publications/specindex.htm. Accessed 7/03.
Costello, T.J. and D.M. Allen. 1970. Synopsis of biological data on the pink shrimp. In Proceedings of the World
Scientific Conference on the Biology and Culture of Shrimps and Prawns. Volume IV: Species Synopses, Mexico
City, June 12-21, 1967. FAO Fisheries Report 57(4): 1499-1537.
Coutant, C.A. and M.S. Bevelhimer. 2001. Comments on Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers, LLP. 1999 Draft
Brayton Point Power Plant Entrainment Survival Study 1997-1998. Report for US Gen New England, Inc., Pearl
River, NY. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. February 12.
Crutchfield, J.A., S. Langdon, O.A. Mathisen, and P.H. Poe. 1982. The Biological, Economic, and Social Values
of a Sockeye Salmon Stream in Bristol Bay, Alaska: A Case Study of Tazimina River. Circular No. 82-2.
Fisheries Research Institute, College of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle. October.
Cummings, R., P. Ganderton, and T. McGuckin. 1994. Substitution effects in CVM values. Am. J. Agric.
Economics 76:205-214.
Daily, G.C. (ed.). 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press,
Washington, DC.
Daily, G.C., S. Alexander, P.R Ehrlich, L. Goulder, J. Lubchenco, P.A. Matson, H.A. Mooney, S. Postel, S.H.
Schneider, D. Tilman, and G.M. Woodwell. 1997. Ecosystem Services: Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by
Natural Ecosystems. Ecological Society of America, Washington, DC.
Dalhuisen, J.M., R.J.G.M. Florax, H.L.F. de Groot, and P. Nijkamp. 2003. Price and income elasticities of
residential water demand: A meta analysis. Land Economics 79(2):292-308.
Dalton, R.S., C.T. Bastian, and J.J. Jacobs. 1998. Estimating the economic value of improved trout fishing on
Wyoming streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18:786-797.
Dames & Moore. 1977. 316(b) Demonstration for the Cayuga and Wabash River Generating Stations.
Ref-5
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Daniels, R.A. and P.B. Moyle. 1983. Life history of splittail (Cyprinidae: Pogonichthys macrolepidotus) in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. Fishery Bulletin 81(3):647-654.
Day Jr., J.W., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Hall, and A. Yanez-Arancibia. 1989. Zooplankton, the drifting consumers. In
Estuarine Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 311-337.
Deree, H.L. 1999. Age and growth, dietary habits, and parasitism of the fourbeard rockling, Enchelyopus
cimbrius, from the Gulf of Maine. Fishery Bulletin 97(l):39-52. http://fishbull.noaa.gov/04dereef.pdf Accessed
1/03.
Derickson, W.K. and K.S. Price. 1973. The fishes of the shore zone of Rehoboth and Indian River Bays,
Delaware. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 102(3):552-562.
Desvousges, W.H. and V.K Smith. 1988. Focus Groups and Risk Communication: The Science of Listening to
Data. Risk Analysis 8:479-484.
Desvousges, W.H., F.R. Johnson, and H.S. Banzhaf. 1998. Environmental Policy Analysis with Limited
Information: Principles and Applications of the Transfer Method. Edward Elgar Publishers, Northampton, MA.
Desvousges, W.H., M.C. Naughton, and G.R. Parsons. 1992. Benefit transfer: Conceptual problems in estimating
water quality benefits using existing studies. Water Resources Research 28(3):675-683.
Desvousges, W.H., V.K. Smith, D.H. Brown, and O.K. Pate. 1984. The Role of Focus Groups in Designing a
contingent Valuation Survey to Measure the Benefits of Hazardous Waste Management Regulations. Research
Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Dixon, D.A. 1999. Catalog of Assessment Methods for Evaluating the Effects of Power Plant Operations on
Aquatic Communities. Final Report. Report number TR-112013. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,
CA.
Drudi, D. 1998. Fishing for a living is dangerous work. Compensation and Working Conditions Summer: 3-7.
Dryfoos, R.L. 1965. The Life History and Ecology of the Longfm Smelt in Washington. Dissertation, University
of Washington. University Microfilms Inc., Ann Arbor, MI.
Duffield, J. and D. Patterson. 1992. Field Testing Existence Values: Comparison of Hypothetical and Cash
Transaction Values. Benefits and Costs in Natural Resource Planning, 5th Report. W-133 Western Regional
Research Publication. B. Rettig, Compiler, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Oregon State
University, Corvallis.
Durbin, A.G., E.G. Durbin, T.J. Smayda, and P.G. Verity. 1983. Age, size, growth, and chemical composition of
Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus, from Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. Fishery Bulletin 81(1): 133-141.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology. 1986. Entrainment and Impingement Studies at Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station 1984-1985. Prepared for GPU Nuclear Corporation by EA Engineering, Science, and
Technology, Hunt Valley, MD. July.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology. 1989. Indian Point Generating Station 1988 Entrainment Survival
Study. Final. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. and New York Power Authority by
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Hunt Valley, MD. August.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology. 2000. Review of Entrainment Survival Studies: 1970-2000. Prepared
for Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Hunt Valley, MD.
Ref-6
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
EA Science and Technology. 1986. Indian Point Generating Station Entrainment Survival Study. 1985 Annual
Report. Prepared under contract with Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. and New York Power
Authority by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Hunt Valley, MD.
EA Science and Technology. 1990. Results of Entrainment and Impingement Studies Conducted at the
Braidwood Nuclear Station and the Adjacent Kankakee River. Prepared for Commonwealth Edison Company by
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Hunt Valley, MD.
Ecological Analysts. 1976a. Bowline Point Generating Station Entrainment Survival and Abundance Studies,
Volume I, 1975 Annual Interpretive Report. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. by Ecological
Analysts Inc.
Ecological Analysts. 1976b. Danskammer Point Generating Station Impingement and Entrainment Survival
Studies, 1975 Annual Report. Prepared for Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation by Ecological Analysts
Inc.
Ecological Analysts. 1976c. Roseton Generating Station Impingement and Entrainment Survival Studies, 1975
Annual Report. Prepared for Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation by Ecological Analysts Inc.
Ecological Analysts. 1977. Bowline Point Generating Station Entrainment and Impingement Studies, 1976
Annual Report. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. by Ecological Analysts Inc.
Ecological Analysts. 1978a. Bowline Point Generating Station Entrainment Survival Studies, 1977 Annual
Interpretive Report. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. by Ecological Analysts Inc.
Ecological Analysts. 1978b. Impact of the Cooling Water Intake at the Indian River Power Plant: A 316(b)
Evaluation. Prepared for Delmarva Power & Light Co. by Ecological Analysts Inc. May.
Ecological Analysts. 1978c. Indian Point Generating Station Entrainment Survival and Related Studies, 1977
Annual Report. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. by Ecological Analysts Inc.
Ecological Analysts. 1978d. Port Jefferson Generating Station Entrainment Survival Study. Prepared for Long
Island Lighting Company by Ecological Analysts Inc. December.
Ecological Analysts. 1978e. Roseton Generating Station Entrainment Survival Studies, 1976 Annual Report.
Prepared for Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation by Ecological Analysts Inc.
Ecological Analysts. 1978f Roseton Generating Station Entrainment Survival Studies, 1977 Annual Report.
Prepared for Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation by Ecological Analysts Inc.
Ecological Analysts. 1979a. An Assessment of the Potential for Ichthyoplankton Entrainment Survival at the
Muskingum River Plant. Prepared for American Electric Power Service Corp. by Ecological Analysts Inc.
Ecological Analysts. 1979b. Bowline Point Generating Station Entrainment Abundance and Survival Studies,
1978 Annual Report. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. by Ecological Analysts Inc.
Ecological Analysts. 1979c. Indian Point Generating Station Entrainment Survival and Related Studies, 1978
Annual Report. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. by Ecological Analysts Inc.
Ecological Analysts. 1980a. Entrainment Survival Studies at the Cayuga Generating Plant. Prepared for Public
Service of Indiana by Ecological Analysts Inc. March.
Ref-7
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Ecological Analysts. 1980b. Potrero Power Plant Cooling Water Intake Structures 316(b) Demonstration.
Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company by Ecological Analysts Inc. January.
Ecological Analysts. 1980c. Roseton Generating Station Entrainment Survival Studies, 1978 Annual Report.
Prepared for Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation by Ecological Analysts Inc.
Ecological Analysts. 198 la. Bowline Point Generating Station Entrainment Abundance and Survival Studies,
1979 Annual Report with Overview of 1975-1979 Studies. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. by
Ecological Analysts Inc.
Ecological Analysts. 198 Ib. Contra Costa Power Plant Cooling Water Intake Structures 316b Demonstration.
Prepared for PG&E by Ecological Analysts Inc.
Ecological Analysts. 198 Ic. Entrainment Survival Studies. Prepared for Empire State Electric Energy Research
Corporation by Ecological Analysts Inc.
Ecological Analysts. 198 Id. Indian Point Generating Station Entrainment Survival and Related Studies 1979
Annual Report. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York and Power Authority of the State of
New York by Ecological Analysts Inc. April.
Ecological Analysts. 1982a. Hunters Point Power Plant Cooling Water Intake Structures 316(b) Demonstration.
Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company by Ecological Analysts Inc. March.
Ecological Analysts. 1982b. Indian Point Generating Station Entrainment Survival and Related Studies 1980
Annual Report. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York and Power Authority of the State of
New York by Ecological Analysts Inc. January.
Ecological Analysts. 1983. Roseton Generating Station Entrainment Survival Studies, 1980 Annual Report.
Prepared for Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation by Ecological Analysts Inc.
Ehrhardt, N.M., D.J. Die, and V.R. Restrepo. 1990. Abundance and impact of fishing on a stone crab (Menippe
mercenarid) population in Everglades National Park, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 46(2):311-323.
ENSR and Marine Research. 2000. Study of Winter Flounder Transport in Coastal Cape Cod Bay and
Entrainment at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. Prepared for Entergy Nuclear Generation Company by ENSR and
Marine Research Inc.
Entergy Nuclear Generation Company. 2000. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station.
Semi-Annual Report Number 55, January 1999-December 1999.
Farber, S. 1987. The value of coastal wetlands for protection of property against hurricane wind damage. Journal
of Environmental Economics and Management 14:143-151.
Feinerman, E. and K. Knapp. 1983. Benefits from groundwater management: Magnitude, sensitivity, and
distribution. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 65(4):703-710.
Finkel, A.M. 1990. Confronting Uncertainty in Risk Management. Center for Risk Management, Resources for
the Future, Washington, DC.
Fischman, R.L. 2001. The EPA's NEPA duties and ecosystem services. Stanford Environmental Law Journal
20(2):497-536.
Ref-8
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Fish, M.P. 1932. Contributions to the early life histories of sixty-two species of fishes from Lake Erie, and its
tributary waters. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries 47:293-398.
Fisher, A. and R. Raucher. 1984. Intrinsic benefits of improved water quality: Conceptual and empirical
perspectives. Advances in Applied Micro-Economics 3:37-66.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2001. Fishing Lines Fish Identification Section.
http://marinefisheries.org/Fishinglines/fish_id2.pdf Accessed 12/12/01.
Freeman III, A.M. 1993. Non-use values in natural resource damage assessment. In Valuing Natural Assets, R.J.
Kopp and V. Kerry Smith (eds). Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
Freeman III, A.M. 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods.
Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
Froese, R. and C. Binohlan. 2000. Empirical relationships to estimate asymptotic length, length at first maturity
and length at maximum yield per recruit in fishes, with a simple method to evaluate length frequency data.
Fishbase. http://filaman.uni-kiel.de/Download/index.htm. Accessed 12/17/02.
Froese, R. and D. Pauly (eds). 2000. FishBase 2000. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources
Management, Los Baiios, Laguna, Philippines.
Froese, R. and D. Pauly (eds.). 2001. FishBase. http://www.fishbase.org. Accessed 10/01.
Froese, R. and D. Pauly (eds.). 2002. FishBase. http://www.fishbase.org. Accessed 11/02.
Froese, R. and D. Pauly (eds.). 2003. FishBase. http://www.fishbase.org. Accessed 1/03.
Fuchs, E.H. 1967. Life history of the emerald shiner, Notropis atherinoides, in Lewis and Clark Lake, South
Dakota. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 96:247-256.
Garwood, G.P. 1968. Notes on the life histories of the silversides, Menidia beryllina (Cope) andMembras
martinica (Valenciennes) in Mississippi Sound and adjacent water. Proceedings of the Southeastern Association
of Game andFish Commissioners 21:314-323.
Gautam, A. and S. Steinbeck. 1998. Valuation of recreational fisheries in the north-east U.S. Striped Bass: a case
study. Chapter 23 in Recreational Fisheries: Social, Economic and Management Aspects, P. Hickley and H.
Tompkins (eds.). Fishing News Books, Oxford.
Geo-Marine, Inc. 1978. 316(b) Demonstration for the W.H. Sammis Generating Station. Prepared for Ohio
Edison Company. Piano, TX. September 8.
Glass, G.V. 1976. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher 5(10):3-8.
Goldstein, H. 1995. Multilevel Statistical Models. 2nd ed. Edward Arnold, London, UK.
Goodyear, C.P. 1978. Entrainment Impact Estimates Using the Equivalent Adult Approach. FWS/OBS — 78/65.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. July.
Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 2003. Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Protecting Our Fishery.
http://www.glfc.org/pubs/fact 10.pdf. Accessed 2/03.
Ref-9
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Griffiths, C. Undated. The Use of Benefit-Cost Analysis in Environmental Policy Making. Working Paper.
National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Grigalunas, T.A., J.J. Opaluch, D. French, and M. Reed. 1988. Measuring damages to marine natural resources
from pollution incidents under CERCLA: Applications of an integrated ocean systems/economic model. Marine
Resources Economics 5:1-21.
Grimes, B.H., M.T. Huish, J.H. Kerby, and D. Moran. 1989. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental
Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) Summer and Winter Flounder. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(1 1.1 12). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4.
Hadderingh, R.H. 1978. Mortality of young fish in the cooling water system of Bergum power station.
Proceedings International Association of Theoretical and Applied Limnology 20:347-352.
Hagen, D., J. Vincent, and P. Welle. 1992. Benefits of preserving old growth forests and the spotted owl.
Contemporary Policy Issues 10: 13-25.
Hanemann, M., J. Loomis, and B. Kanninen. 1991. Statistical efficiency of double -bounded dichotomous choice
contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73(4): 1255-1263.
Harpman, D.A., M.P. Welsh, and R.C. Bishop. 1993. Nonuse economic value: Emerging policy analysis tool.
Hartman, K.J. 1993. Striped Bass, Bluefish, and Weakfish in the Chesapeake Bay: Energetics, Trophic Linkages,
and Bioenergenics Model Applications. Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
Hazleton Environmental Science. 1978. The Survival of Entrained Icthyoplankton at Quad-Cities Station 1978.
Prepared for Commonwealth Edison Company, Chicago, IL, by Hazleton Environmental Science Corporation.
Heal, G., G.C. Daily, P.R. Ehrlich, J. Salzman, C. Boggs, J. Hellmann, J. Hughes, C. Kremen, and T. Ricketts.
2001. Protecting natural capital through ecosystem service districts. Stanford Environmental Law Journal
20(2):333-364.
Hendrickson, L. 2000. Windowpane Flounder. NOAA. http://www.nefsc.nmfs.gov/sos/spsvn/fldrs/window.
Accessed 2/1/02.
Herman, J.S., D.C. Culver, and J. Salzman. 2001. Groundwater ecosystems and the service of water. Stanford
Environmental Law Journal 20(2):479-496.
Hicks, R. 2002. Stated Preference Methods for Environmental Management: Recreational Summer Flounder
Angling in the Northeastern United States. Final report prepared for Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division,
Office of Science and Technology, National Marine Fisheries Service. Requisition Request # NFFKS-18. March.
Hicks, R., S. Steinback, A. Gautam, and E. Thunberg. 1999. Volume II: The Economic Value of New England
and Mid-Atlantic Sportfishing in 1994. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-38. U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.
Hilborn, R. and C.J. Walters. 1992. Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment, Choice, Dynamics and Uncertainty.
Chapman and Hall, London and New York.
Hildebrand, S.F. 1922. Notes on habits and development of eggs and larvae of the silversides Menidia menidia
w& Menidia beryllina. Fishery Bulletin 38: 1 13-120.
Ref-10
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Holmlund, C.M. and M. Hammer. 1999. Ecosystem services generated by fish populations. Ecological Economics
29:253-268.
Holt, M.T. and R.C. Bishop. 2002. A semiflexible normalized quadratic inverse demand system: An application
to the price formation offish. Empirical Economics 27(l):23-48.
Horseman, L.O. and C.A. Shirey. 1974. Age, growth, and distribution of white perch in the Chesapeake and
Delaware Canal. In: Anonymous. Ecological Studies in the Vicinity of the Proposed Summit Power Station,
January through December 1973. Vol. I, Part B.
Horst, T.J. 1975. The assessment of impact due to entrainment of ichthyoplankton. In Fisheries and Energy
Production, S.B. Saila (ed.). D.C. Heath, Lexington, MA, pp. 107-118.
Houde, E.D., W.J. Richards, and V.P. Saksena. 1974. Description of eggs and larvae of scaled sardine, Harengula
jaguana. Fishery Bulletin 72(4): 1106-1122.
Huppert, D.D. 1989. Measuring the value offish to anglers: Application to Central California anadromous
species. Marine Resource Economics 6(2):89-107.
Hushak, L.J., J.M. Winslow, and N. Dutta. 1988. Economic value of Great Lakes sportfishing: The case of
private-boat fishing in Ohio's Lake Erie. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117:363-373.
Isaacson, P.A. 1964. Length-weight relationship of the white croaker. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 93:302-303.
Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,
MD.
Jinks, S.M., G.J. Lauer, and M.E. Loftus. 1981. Advances in techniques for assessment of ichthyoplankton
entrainment survival. In Fifth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement: Issues Associated with
Impact Assessment, L.D. Jensen (ed.). Ecological Analysts Inc., Sparks, MD, pp. 91-110.
Johnson, D.M. 1989. Economic Benefits of Alternative Fishery Management Programs. Colorado State
University, Dissertation.
Johnson, D.M., R.J. Behnke, D.A. Harpman, and R.G. Walsh. 1995. Economic benefits and costs of stocking
catchable rainbow trout: A synthesis of economic analysis in Colorado. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 15(l):26-32.
Johnson, D.R. and W. Seaman. 1986. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal
Fishes and Invertebrates (South Florida): Spotted Seatrout. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report
82(11.43). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TREL-82-4. http://www.nwrc.gov/wdb/pub/0139.pdf.
Johnson, N.S. and R.M. Adams. 1989. On the marginal value of a fish: Some evidence from the steelhead fishery.
Marine Resource Economics 6(l):43-55.
Johnston, R.J., E.Y. Besedin, and R.F. Wardwell. 2003. Modeling relationships between use and nonuse values
for surface water quality: A meta-analysis. Water Resources Research 39(12): 1363-1372.
Johnston, R.J., T.F. Weaver, L.A. Smith, and S.K. Swallow. 1995. Contingent valuation focus groups: Insights
from ethnographic interview techniques. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 24(l):56-69.
Ref-11
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Jones and Stokes Associates. 1987. Juneau Area Sport Fishing Economic Study. Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.,
Robert D. Niehaus, Inc. Prepared for Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division. Anchorage.
Study Report AK 99518-1599. October.
Jude, D.J., F.J. Tesar, S.F. Deboe, and T.J. Miller. 1987. Diet and selection of major prey species by Lake
Michigan salmonines, 1973-1982. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116(5):677-691.
Kaoru, Y. 1993. Differentiating use and nonuse values for coastal pond water quality improvements.
Environmental and Resource Economics 3:487-494.
Karpoff, J.M. 1985. Non-pecuniary benefits in commercial fishing: Empirical findings from the Alaska salmon
fisheries. Economic Inquiry 23:159-174.
Kelso, J.R.M. and G.S. Milburn. 1979. Entrainment and impingement offish by power plants in the Great Lakes
which use the once-through cooling process. Journal of Great Lakes Research 5:182-194.
King, D.M. and V.G. Flagg. 1984. The Economic Structure of California's Commercial Fisheries 1982. Working
Paper No. P-T-32. California Sea Grant College Program, La Jolla.
Kirkley, J.E., N.E. Bockstael, K.E. McConnell, and I.E. Strand. 1999. The Economic Value of Saltwater Angling
in Virginia. Virginia Marine Resource Report No. 99-2, VSG-99-02, January.
Kleinholz, C.W. 2000. Species Profile: Bigmouth Buffalo. SRAC Publication No. 723. Southern Regional
Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS. June.
Kotchen, M.J. and S.D. Reiling. 2000. Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse
values: A case study involving endangered species. Ecological Economics 32:93-107.
Krinsky, I. and A.L. Robb. 1986. Approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Review of Economics and
Statistics 6%(4):715-719.
Kucas, S.T. and T.J. Hassler. 1986. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal
Fishes and Invertebrates (Pacific Southwest) — California Halibut. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mol. Report
82tl 1.44. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4.
Lassuy, D.R. 1989. Species Profile: Life History and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes: Pacific
Herring. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.126). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-
4. http://www.nwrc.usgs.gOv/wdb/pub/0151 .pdf Accessed 7/3/01.
Lauer, G.J., W.T. Waller, D.W. Bath, W. Meeks, D. Heffner, T. Ginn, L. Zubarik, P. Bibko, and P.C. Storm.
1974. Entrainment studies on Hudson River organisms. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Entrainment
and Intake screening. Report. 15. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 37-82.
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1985. 2.0 entrainment survival studies. In Quad Cities Aquatic Program
1984 Annual Report. Prepared for Commonwealth Edison, Chicago, IL, by Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers,
Pearl River, NY.
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1999. Brayton Point Power Station Entrainment Survival Study, 1997-
1998. Draft. Prepared for USGen New England, Inc., Brayton Point Station, Somerset, MA, by Lawler Matusky
& Skelly Engineers, Pearl River, NY.
Layton, D. and G. Brown. 1998. Heterogenous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change. Presented at
NOAA Applications of Stated Preference Methods to Resource Compensation Workshop, Washington, DC.
Ref-12
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Leak, J.C. and E.D. Houde. 1987. Cohort growth and survival of bay anchovy, Anchoa mitchilli, larvae in
Biscayne Bay, Florida. Marine Ecology Progress Series 37:109-122.
Leard, R., R. Matheson, K. Meador, W. Keithly, C. Luquet, M. Van Hoose, C. Dyer, S. Gordon, J. Robertson, D.
Horn, and R. Scheffler. 1993. The black drum fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States: A regional
management plan. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission Report Number 28, Ocean Springs, MS.
Lee, S.T. 1996. The Economics of Recreational Fishing. Dissertation, University of Washington.
Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, R. Klingbeil, and E.J. Larson (eds). 2001. California's Living Marine Resources: A
Status Report. California Department of Fish and Game. December, http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/status/.
Light, P.R. and K.W. Able. 2003. Juvenile Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) in Delaware Bay, USA are
the result of local and long-distance recruitment. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 57:1007-1014.
Lindberg, W.J. and M.J. Marshall. 1984. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of
Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Florida) — Stone Crab. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-
82/11.21. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TREL-82-4.
Loomis, J. and E. Ekstrand. 1997. Economic benefits of critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl: A scope test
using a multiple bounded contingent valuation survey. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics
22(2):356-366.
Loomis, J., P. Kent, E.M. Strange, K. Fausch, and A. Covich. 2000. Measuring the total economic value of
restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: Results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological
Economics 33:103-117.
Loomis, J.B. 1988. The bioeconomic effects of timber harvesting on recreational and commercial salmon and
steelhead fishing: A case study of the Siuslaw National Forest. Marine Resource Economics Volume 5.
Loomis, J.B. and D.M. Larson. 1994. Total economic values of increasing gray whale populations: Results from a
contingent valuation survey of visitors and households. Marine Resource Economics 9:275-286.
Loomis, J.B. and D.S. White. 1996. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: Summary and meta-
analysis. Ecological Economics 18:197-206.
Lupi, F. and J.P. Hoehn. 1998. A Partial Benefit-Cost Analysis of Sea Lamprey Treatment on the St. Marys River.
Michigan State University.
Lupi, F., J. Hoehn, H. Chen, and T. Tomasi. 1997. The Michigan Recreational Angling Demand Model. Michigan
State University and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Department of Environmental Quality.
MaineToday.com. 2003. 2003 Saltwater Fishing Regulations.
http://outdoors.mainetoday.com/fishing/bruce/bassreg.shtml.
Marcy, B.C., Jr. 1971. Survival of young fish in the discharge canal of a nuclear power plant. Journal Fisheries
Research Board of Canada 28:1057-1060.
Marcy, B.C., Jr. 1973. Vulnerability and survival of young Connecticut River fish entrained at a nuclear power
plant. Journal Fisheries Research Board of Canada 30:1195-1203.
Ref-13
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Marcy, B.C., Jr. 1975. Entrainment of organisms at power plants, with emphasis on fishes — an overview. In
Fisheries and Energy Production, S.B. Sailia (ed.). B.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, MA, pp. 89-106.
Marcy, B.C., A.D. Beck, and R.E. Ulanowicz. 1978. Effects and impacts of physical stress on entrained
organisms. In Power Plant Entrainment: A Biological Assessment. Academic Press, New York, pp. 136-188.
Mayo, R. and L. O'Brien. 2000. Atlantic cod. In Status of Fishery Resources off Northeastern United States.
http://www.wh.whoi.edu/sos/spsyn/pg/cod/. Accessed 1/03.
McConnell, K. and I. Strand. 1994. The Economic Value of Mid and South Atlantic Sportfishing: Volume 2.
Cooperative Agreement #CR-811043-01-0 between the University of Maryland at College Park, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
McDermot, D. and K.A. Rose. 2000. An individual-based model of lake fish communities: Application to
piscivore stocking in Lake Mendota. Ecological Modelling 125:67-102.
McLaren, J.B., T.H. Peck, W.P. Dey, and M. Gardinier. 1988. Biology of Atlantic tomcod in the Hudson River
Estuary. In Science, Law, and Hudson River Power: A Case Study in Environmental Impact Assessment, L.W.
Barnthouse, R.J. Klanda, D.S. Vaughn, and R.L. Kendall (eds.). American Fisheries Society Monograph No. 4.
American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
McLean, R.I. and J.J. Dieter. 2002. State of Maryland Comments on Proposed Regulations to Establish
Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities; Proposed Rule, Published
Federal Register, April 9, 2002. To Proposed Rule Comment Clerk W-00-32, dated August 5, 2002.
MDNR. 2002. Data from the 2001 Recreational Angler Survey. Charlevoix Fisheries Research Station. Michigan
Department of Natural Resources. Received from David Clapp, Charlevoix Great Lakes Research Station,
Charlevoix, MI.
Meffe, G.K. 1992. Techno-arrogance and halfway technologies: Salmon hatcheries on the Pacific Coast of North
America. Conservation Biology 6:350-354.
Meredith, W.H. and V.A. Lotrich. 1979. Production dynamics of tidal creek population ofFundulus heteroclitus
(linnaeus). Estuaries and Coastal Marine Science 8:99-118.
Miller, E.E. 1966. Channel catfish. In Inland Fisheries Management. California Department of Fish and Game,
Sacramento, pp. 440-463.
Milliman, S.R., B.L. Johnson, R.C. Bishop, and K.J. Boyle. 1992. The bioeconomics of resource rehabilitation: A
commercial-sport analysis for a Great Lakes fishery. Land Economics 68(2):191-210.
Mitchell, R.C. and R.T. Carson. 1981. An experiment in determining willingness to pay for national water quality
improvements. Preliminary Draft of a Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Resources for the
Future, Inc., Washington, DC.
Mitchell, R.C. and R.T. Carson. 1986. The Use of Contingent Valuation Data for Benefit/Cost Analysis of Water
Pollution Control. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC. September.
Mitchell, R.C. and R.T. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method.
Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
Ref-14
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Monterey Bay Aquarium. 1999. White Sturgeon, http://www.mbayaq.org/efc/living_species/default.asp?hOri =
l&inhab = 498.
Morey, E.R., R.D. Rowe, and M. Watson. 1993. A repeated nested-logit model of Atlantic salmon fishing.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics August, pp. 578-592.
Morey, E., W.D. Shaw, and R.D. Rowe. 1991. A discrete-choice model of recreational participation, site choice,
and activity valuation when complete trip data are not available. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management 20:181-201.
Morey, E.R., W.S. Breffle, R.D. Rowe, and D.M. Waldman. 2002. Estimating recreational trout fishing damages
in Montana's Clark Fork River basin: Summary of a natural resource damage assessment. Journal of
Environmental Management 66(2): 159-170.
Morgan, II, R.P. 1980. Biocides and fish behavior. Power Plants: Effects on Fish and Shellfish Behavior, C.H.
Hocutt, J.R. Stauffer, Jr., J.E. Edinger, L.W. Hall, Jr., and R.P. Morgan, II (eds.). Academic Press, New York, pp.
75-102.
Morgan, II, R.P. and E.J. Carpenter. 1978. Biocides. Power Plant Entrainment: A Biological Assessment, J.R.
Schubel and B.C. Marcy, Jr. (eds.). Academic Press, New York, pp. 95-134.
Moyle, P.B., B. Herbold, D.E Stevens, and L.W. Miller. 1992. Life history and status of delta smelt in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121:67-77.
Muncy, R.J. 1984. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and
Invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico): Pinfish. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82/11.26. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers TR EL-82-4. http://www.nwrc.gov/wdb/pub/0166 .pdf.
Murdock, J. 2001. Valuing Recreational Fishing Opportunities While Catching Unobserved Characteristics. Yale
University.
Murphy, M.D. and T.C. MacDonald. 2000. An Assessment of the Status of Sheepshead in Florida Waters through
1999. Florida Marine Research Institute, St. Petersburg.
Murphy, M.D. and R.G. Taylor. 1989. Reproduction and growth of black drum, Pogonias cromis, in northeast
Florida. Northeast Gulf Science 10:127-137.
Murphy, M.D. and R.G. Taylor. 1994. Age, growth, and mortality of spotted seatrout in Florida waters.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123:482-497.
Murphy, M.D., G.A. Nelson, and RG. Muller. 2000. Florida's Inshore andNearshore Species: 2000 Status and
Trends Report, http://floridamarine.org.
NatureServe. 2006. Natural Heritage Central Databases. NatureServe, Arlington, VA.
http: //www .nature serve. org/explorer/.
NEFMC. 2003. Final Amendment to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan Including a Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. New England
Fishery Management Council, Woodshole, MA.
Nelson, G.A. 1998. Abundance, growth, and mortality of young-of-the-year pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides, in
three estuaries along the Gulf Coast of Florida. Fishery Bulletin 96:315-328.
Ref-15
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
NEP. 2004. National Estuary Program Extramural Funding, FY 1998-FY 2003. National Estuary Program.
Received from Greg Colianni, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division. July 1.
New England Power Company and Marine Research Inc. 1995. Brayton Point Station Annual Biological and
Hydrological Report, January-December 1994. August.
Newman, M.C. 1995. Quantitative Methods in Aquatic Ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
Nitschke, P., R. Brown, and L. Hendrickson. 2000. Winter flounder. In Status of the Fishery Resources off the
Northeastern United States. NOAA, Northeast Fisheries Science Center.
http://www.nefsc.nmfs.gov/sos/spsyn/fldrs/winter/. Accessed 1/03.
NMFS. 1999a. Our Living Oceans. Report on the Status of US Living Marine Resources. NMFS-F/SPO-41.
NOAA Technical Memorandum. National Marine Fisheries Service.
NMFS. 1999b. Recovery Planning for West Coast Salmon. National Marine Fisheries Service.
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/lsalmon/salmesa/pubs/recovsum.pdf Accessed 1/03.
NMFS. 2001a. Report to Congress: Status of Fisheries of the United States 2001. Prepared by National Marine
Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. January.
NMFS. 2001b. Sea Turtle Protection and Conservation. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected
Resources, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot res/PR3/Turtles/turtles.html.
NMFS. 2002a. Annual Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries — 2001. U.S. Department of
Commerce, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.
NMFS. 2002b. Commercial Landings Data Caveats. National Marine Fisheries Service.
http://www.st.nmfs.gov/commercial/landings/caveat.html. Accessed 11/4/02.
NMFS. 2002c. Fishery Management Councils. National Marine Fisheries Service.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/councils/. Accessed 12/9/02.
NMFS. 2002d. Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS), Snapshot Query. National Marine
Fisheries Service, http://www.st.nmfs.gov/recreational/queries/catch/snapshot.html.
NMFS. 2002e. Sustainable Fisheries Act. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/. Accessed 12/9/02.
NMFS. 2003a. Annual Commercial Landing Statistics website. National Marine Fisheries Service.
http://www.st.nmfs.gov/stl/commercial/. Accessed 8/03.
NMFS. 2003b. Annual Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries — 2002. U.S. Dept. Commerce,
NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.
NMFS. 2003c. Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Intercept Survey. National Marine Fisheries Service.
http://www.st.nmfs.gov/recreational/the mrfss.html.
NOAA. 1993. Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States for 1993. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC 101. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Marine Fisheries
Service, Silver Spring, MD.
Ref-16
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
NOAA. 200la. Chesapeake Bay Office Species Information. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
http://noaa.chesapeakebav.net/fisheries/species.htm. Accessed 12/01.
NOAA. 200 Ib. Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, http://www.nefsc.nmfs.gov/sos/. Accessed 11/01.
NOAA. 2005. 2005 Status of U.S. Fisheries, Fourth Quarter Update. Status Determination Tables A-E. Office of
Sustainable Fisheries. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm. Accessed 4/24/2006.
Northeast Midwest Institute. 2004. Large-scale Ecosystem Restoration Initiatives, Protecting and Restoring the
Upper Mississippi River. Available at http://www.nemw.org/uppermiss_restoration.htm. Accessed June 23, 2004.
Norton, V., T. Smith, and I.E. Strand (eds.). 1983. Stripers: The Economic Value of the Atlantic Coast
Commercial and Recreational Striped Bass Fisheries. UM-SG-TS-83-12. Maryland Sea Grant Publication,
College Park.
NYSDEC. 2003. Lake Sturgeon Fact Sheet. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/lakestur.html.
O'Brien, L. 2000. American Plaice, http://www.nefsc.nmfs.gov/sos/spsyn/fldrs/plaice/. Accessed 6/30/01.
O'Connell, C. 1953. Life History of the Cabezon Scorpaenichthys marmoratus (Ayres). State of California
Department of Fish and Game Marine Fisheries Branch Fish Bulletin No. 93.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 2003. Life History Notes: Bluntnose Minnow.
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/wildlife/Fishing/aquanotes-fishid/bluntnose.htm. Accessed 1/03.
Olsen, D., J. Richards, and D.R. Scott. 1991. Existence and sport values for doubling the size of Columbia River
Basin salmon and steelhead runs. Rivers 2(l):44-56.
Overholtz, W. 2002a. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern
United States. Atlantic Herring, http://www.nefsc.nmfs.gov/sos/spsyn/pp/herring/. Accessed 1/11/02.
Overholtz, W. 2002b. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern
United States. Atlantic Mackerel, http://www.nefsc.nmfs.gov/sos/spsyn/pp/mackerel/. Accessed 1/03.
Overholtz, W.J., R.S. Armstrong, D.G. Mountain, and M. Tercerio. 1991. Factors Influencing Spring Distribution,
Availability, and Recreational Catch of Atlantic Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in the Middle Atlantic and
Southern New England Regions. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-85.
Packer, D.B., S.J. Griesbach, P.L. Berrien, C.A. Zetlin, D.L. Johnson, and W.W. Morse. 1999. Essential Fish
Habitat Source Document: Summer Flounder, Paralichtyus dentatus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-151. September, http://www.nefsc.nmfs.gov/nefsc/publications/.
Pattillo, M.E., T.E. Czapla, D.M. Nelson, and M.E. Monaco. 1997. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and
Invertebrates in Gulf of Mexico Estuaries, Volume II: Species Life History Summaries. ELMR Report No. 11.
NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Silver Spring, MD.
Pauly, D. and V. Christensen. 1995. Primary production required to sustain global fisheries. Nature 374:255-257.
Pauley, G.B., D.A. Armstrong, R. Van Citter, and G.L. Thomas. 1989. Species Profiles: Life Histories and
Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Pacific Southwest) — Dungeness Crab. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.121). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TREL-82-4.
Ref-17
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Pendleton, L.H. and R. Mendelsohn. 1998. Estimating the economic impact of climate change on the freshwater
sportfisheries of the Northeast United States. Land Economics 74:483-496.
Pennsylvania. 1999. Rules and Regulations: Title 58-Recreation, Fish and Boat Commission [58 PA. Code CHS.
61 and 65]. http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol29/29-28/29 28 rr.pdf Accessed 11/01.
Pepin P., J.F. Dower, J.A. Helbig, and W.C. Leggett. 2002. Estimating the relative roles of dispersion and
predation in generating regional differences in mortality rates of larval radiated shanny (Ulvaria subbifurcatd).
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59:105-114.
Peterson, C.H. and J. Lubchenco. 1997. Marine ecosystem services. In Nature's Services, Societal Dependence on
Natural Ecosystems, G.C. Daily (ed.). Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 177-194.
PFMC. 1998. Fishery Management Plan: Coastal Pelagic Species. Appendix A: Description of the Coastal
Pelagics Fishery. December. Pacific Fishery Management Council, http://www.pcouncil.org/cps/cpsfmp.html.
Accessed 2/03.
PFMC. 2003a. Background: Coastal Pelagic Species. Pacific Fishery Management Council.
http://www.pcouncil.org/cps/cpsback.htmltffishery. Accessed 2/03.
PFMC. 2003b. Pacific Fishery Management Council, http://www.pcouncil.org. Accessed 2/03.
PFMC. 2003c. Pacific Fishery Management Council Information Sheet: Groundfish. Pacific Fishery Management
Council, http://www.pcouncil.org/facts/groundfish.pdf. Accessed 2/03.
PG&E National Energy Group. 2001. Brayton Point Station Permit Renewal Application, NPDES Permit No.
MA0003654. 316(a) and (b) Demonstration. Executive Summary and Appendices. PG&E National Energy
Group, San Francisco, CA. November.
Pierce, D.J., B. Mahmoudi, and R.R. Wilson, Jr. 2001. Age and growth of the scaled Herring, Harengula jaguana,
from Florida waters, as indicated by microstructure of the sagittae. Fish. Bull 99:202-209.
http://fishbull.noaa.gov/991/18.pdf.Accessed 12/13/01.
Poe, G.L., K.J. Boyle, and J.C. Bergstrom. 2001. A preliminary meta analysis of contingent values for ground
water quality revisited. In The Economic Value of Water Quality, J.C. Bergstrom, K.J. Boyle and G.L. Poe (eds.).
Edward Elgar Publishers, Northampton, MA.
Polgar, T.T., J.K. Summers, and M.S. Haire. 1979. Evaluation of the Effects of the Morgantown SES Cooling
System on Spawning and Nursery Areas of Representative Important Species. Prepared by Martin Marietta
Environmental Center.
Poole, C. and S. Greenland. 1999. Random-effects meta-analyses are not always conservative. American Journal
of Epidemiology 150(5):469-474.
Postel, S. and S. Carpenter. 1997. Freshwater ecosystem services. In Nature 's Services, Societal Dependence on
Natural Ecosystems, G.C. Daily (ed.). Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 195-214.
PSE&G. 1984. Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus): A Synthesis of Information on Natural History, with Reference to
Occurrence in the Delaware River and Estuary and Involvement with the Salem Generating Station. Appendix
VII. Salem Generating Station 316(b) Demonstration. Public Service Electric & Gas Company, Newark, NY.
Ref-18
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
PSE&G. 1999. Permit Renewal Application NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622. Public Service Electric and Gas
Company Salem Generating Station. Public Service Electric & Gas Co., Newark, NJ.
Quinn II, T.J. and R.B. Deriso. 1999. Quantitative Fish Dynamics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, and
New York.
Rago, P.J. 1984. Production forgone: An alternative method for assessing the consequences offish entrainment
and impingement losses at power plants and other water intakes. Ecological Modelling 24:79-111.
Responsive Management. 1992. Responsive Management Report: Focus on Focus Groups. Responsive
Management, Tallahassee, FL.
Ricker, W.E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics offish populations. Fisheries Research
Board of Canada, Bulletin 191.
Rosenberger, R.S. and J.B. Loomis. 2000a. Panel stratification in meta-analysis of economic studies: An
investigation of its effects in the recreation valuation literature. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics
32(3):459-470.
Rosenberger, R.S. and J.B. Loomis. 2000b. Using meta-analysis for benefit transfer: In-sample convergent
validity tests of an outdoor recreation database. Water Resources Research 36(4): 1097-1107.
Rowe, R.D., W.D. Shaw, and W. Schulze. 1992. Nestucca oil spill. In Natural Resource Damages, K. Ward and
J. Duffield (eds). Wiley and Sons, New York.
Rowe, R.D., E.R. Morey, A.D. Ross, and W.D. Shaw. 1985. Valuing Marine Recreational Fishing on the Pacific
Coast. Energy and Resource Consultants Inc. Report prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Report LJ-85-18C. March.
Ruhl, J.B. and R.J. Gregg. 2001. Integrating ecosystem services into environmental law: A case study of wetlands
mitigation banking. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 20(2):365-392.
Ruppert, D., R.L. Reish, R.B. Deriso, and R.J. Carroll. 1985. A stochastic population model for managing the
Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) fishery and assessing managerial risks. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 42:1371-13 79.
Russell, B. and C.H. Hanson. 1990. Assessment of Entrainment Impacts to Rockfish at the Diablo Canyon Power
Plant. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company by Tenera Environmental Services, Lafayette, CA. May 2.
Saila, S.B., E. Lorda, J.D. Miller, R.A. Sher, and W.H. Howell. 1997. Equivalent adult estimates for losses offish
eggs, larvae, and juveniles at Seabrook Station with use of fuzzy logic to represent parametric uncertainty. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:811-825.
Salzman, J., B.H. Thompson, Jr., and G.C. Daily. 2001. Protecting ecosystem services: Science, economics, and
law. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 20(2):309-332.
Samples, K. and R. Bishop. 1985. Estimating the value of variations in anglers' success rates: An application of
the multiple-site travel cost method. Marine Resource Economics 2(l):55-74.
Santos, J.M.L. 1998. The Economic Valuation of Landscape Change. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
Ref-19
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Schkade, D.A. and J.W. Payne. 1994. How people respond to contingent valuation questions: A verbal protocol
analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management 26:88-109.
Schorfhaar, R.G. and P.J. Schneeberger. 1997. Commercial and Sport Fisheries for Lake Whitefish in Michigan
Waters of Lake Superior, 1983-96. State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division
Research Report Number 2034. June 30. http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/www/ifr/ifrlibra/research/reports/2034rr.pdf
Schram, S.T., T.N. Halpern, and T.B. Johnson. 1998. Ecology of burbot in western Lake Superior. In Biology and
Management of Burbot, V. Paragamian and D. MacKinlay (eds). International Congress on the Biology of Fish,
Baltimore, MD, July 27-30. http://www-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/congress/Burbot.pdf
Schubel, J.R., C.C. Coutant, and P.M.J. Woodhead. 1978. Thermal effects of entrainment. \nPowerPlant
Entrainment: A Biological Assessment, J.R. Schubel and B.C. Marcy (eds.). Academic Press, New York, pp. 20-
93.
Schuhmann, P.W. 1996. A Welfare Analysis of Commercial Fishery Harvest Restrictions: A Bioeconomic Model
of Red Drum Stock Dynamics and Recreation Demand. Dissertation, North Carolina State University.
Schuhmann, P.W. 1998. Deriving species-specific benefits measures for expected catch improvements in a
random utility framework. Marine Resource Economics 13(1): 1-21.
Schultz, K. 2000. Ken Schultz 's Fishing Encyclopedia: Worldwide Angling Guide. IDG Books Worldwide, New
York.
Schwartz, F.J., P. Perschbacher, M. McAdams, L. Davidson, K. Sandoy, C. Simpson, J. Duncan, and D. Mason.
1979. Summary Report for 1973-77, an Ecological Study of Fishes and Invertebrate Macrofauna Utilizing the
Cape Fear River Estuary, Carolina Beach Inlet, and Adjacent Atlantic Ocean. Vol. XIV. Report to Carolina Power
Light Co., Raleigh, NC.
Scott, W.B. and E.J. Grossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin
184.
Scott, W.B. and E.J. Grossman. 1998. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin
184. Gait House, Oakville, Ontario, Canada.
Scott, W.B. and M.G. Scott. 1988. Atlantic fishes of Canada. Can. Bull. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 219.
Serchuk, F. and C. Cole. 1974. Age and growth of the cunner, Tautogolabrus adspersus (Waldbaum), Pisces
(Labridae), in the Weweantic River Estuary, Massachusetts. Chesapeake Science 15(4):205-213.
Setzler, E.M., W.R Boynton, K.V. Wood, H.H. Zion, L. Lubbers, N.K. Mountford, P. Frere, L. Tucker, and J.A.
Mihursky. 1980. Synopsis of Biological Data on Striped Bass, Morone saxatilis (Walbaum). NOAA Technical
Report NMFS Circular 433. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service, June.
Shafer, E.L., R. Carline, R.W. Guldin, and H.K. Cordell. 1993. Economic amenity values of wildlife: Six case
studies of Pennsylvania. Environmental Management 17(2):669-682.
Siegfried, C.A. 1989. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and
Invertebrates (Pacific Southwest) — Crangonid Shrimp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report
82(11.125). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TREL-82-4.
Ref-20
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Singer, J.D. 1998. Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth
models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 23(4):323-355.
Smith, C.L. 1981. Satisfaction bonus from salmon fishing: Implications for economic evaluation. Land
Economics 57(2): 181-196.
Smith, V.K. and L. Osborne. 1996. Do contingent valuation estimates pass the scope test? A meta analysis.
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31(3):287-301.
Smith, V.K., G. VanHoutven, and S.K. Pattanayak. 2002. Benefit transfer via preference calibration: "Prudential
algebra" for policy. Land Economics 78(1): 132-152.
Snyder, D.E. 1998. Burbot — larval evidence for more than one North American species? In Biology and
Management of Burbot, V. Paragamian and D. MacKinlay (eds). International Congress on the Biology of Fish,
Baltimore, MD, July 27-30. http://www-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/congress/Burbot.pdf
Southern Energy Delta, LLC. 2000. Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan, Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power
Plants. Draft-Revision 5, June 30, 2000. Prepared for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA, and the
National Marine Fisheries Service, Santa Rosa, CA.
Spigarelli, S.A., A.J. Jensen, and M.M. Thommes. 1981. An Assessment of the Impacts of Water Intakes on
Alewife, Rainbow Smelt, and Yellow Perch Populations in Lake Michigan. EPA-905/3-81-001. ANL/ES-109.
Prepared by Argonne National Laboratory and U.S. EPA. March.
Squires, D., S. Freese, J. Herkelrath, and S.F. Herrick, Jr. 1998. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Pacific Whiting
Allocation. Administrative Report LJ-97-05. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science
Center.
Stanley, J.G. and D.S. Danie. 1983. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal
Fishes and Invertebrates (North Atlantic): White Perch. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Report
FWS/OBS-82/11.7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TREL-82-4.
Stauffer, Jr., J.R. 1980. Influence of temperature on fish behavior. In Power Plants: Effects on Fish and Shellfish
Behavior, C.H. Hocutt, J.R. Stauffer, Jr., J.E. Edinger, L.W. Hall, Jr., R.P. Morgan, II (eds.). Academic Press,
New York, pp. 103-141.
Stevens, D.E. and B.J. Finlayson. 1978. Mortality of Young Striped Bass Entrained at Two Power Plants in
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California. Fourth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. EA
Communications, Melville NY, pp. 57-69.
Stevens, T.H., M.K. Field, T.A. More, and R.J. Glass. 1994. Contingent Valuation of Rare and Endangered
Species: An Assessment. W-133 Benefits and Cost Transfer in Resource Planning.
Stevens, T.H., J. Echeverria, R.J. Glass, T. Hager, and T.A. More. 1991. Measuring the existence value of
wildlife: What do CVM estimates really show? Land Economics 67:390-400.
Stewart, L.L. and P.J. Auster. 1987. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal
Fishes and Invertebrates (North Atlantic) Atlantic Tomcod. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report
82(11.78). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TREL-82-4. http://www.nwrc.gov/wdb/pub/1043.pdf. Accessed 6/03.
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation. 1977. Supplemental Assessment in Support of the 316 Demonstration,
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2, Boston Edison Company. Stone & Webster Engineering
Corporation, Boston, MA.
Ref-21
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation. 1980. 316(a) and (b) Demonstration Big Bend Station — Unit 4.
Volume I and Volume II, Appendices. Prepared for Tampa Electric Company by Stone & Webster Engineering
Corporation, Boston, MA. August 1.
Studholme, A.L., D.B. Packer, P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, C.A. Zetlin, and W.W. Morse. 1999. Essential Fish
Habitat Document: Atlantic Mackerel, Scomber scombrus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-141.
Sullivan, J.R. 1979. The Stone Crab, Menippe mercenaria, in the Southwest Florida Fishery. Florida Marine
Research Publications Number 36. Florida Department of Natural Resources Marine Research Laboratory, St.
Petersburg.
Summers, J.K. 1989. Simulating the indirect effects of power plant entrainment losses on an estuarine ecosystem.
Ecological Modelling 49: 31-47.
Sutter, F.C., R.S. Waller, and T.D. Mcllwain. 1986. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental
Requirements of Coastal Fisheries and Invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico)-Black Drum. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Biological Report 82(11.51). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TRLE-82-4.
Swanson, C. 1993. Economics of Non-Game Management: Bald Eagles on the Skagit River Bald Eagle Natural
Area, Washington. Dissertation, Department of Agricultural Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus.
TBNEP. 1992. Synthesis of Basic Life Histories of Tampa Bay Species. TBNEP Technical Publication #10-92.
Tampa Bay National Estuary Program, St. Petersburg, FL.
Tenera Environmental Services. 1988. Diablo Canyon Power Plant Cooling Water Intake Structure 316(b)
Demonstration. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. April 28.
Tenera Environmental Services. 2000a. Diablo Canyon Power Plant 316(b) Demonstration Report and
Appendices. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. March 1.
Tenera Environmental Services. 2000b. Moss Landing Power Plant Modernization Project 316(b) Resource
Assessment. Prepared for Duke Energy Moss Landing, LLC. April 28.
Tenera Environmental Services. 2001. Morro Bay Power Plant Modernization Project: 316(b) Resource
Assessment. Prepared for Duke Energy Morro Bay, LLC, Oakland, CA. July 10.
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 2006. Endangered/Threatened Species.
http://www.state.tn.us/twra/nongOO 1 .html. Accessed 4/6/2006.
The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association. 2004. Basin Facts. Available at
http://www.umrba.org/basinfacts.htm. Accessed 6/23/04.
Thomas, D.A. 2002. Memo to docket, RE: Observations of foam in discharge canals of 2 power plants. December
30, 2002.
Thomas, D.L. 1971. An Ecological Study of the Delaware River in the Vicinity of Artificial Island. Progress
Report for the Period January-December 1970, Part III: The Early Life History and Ecology of Six Species of
Drum (Sciaenidae) in the Lower Delaware River, a Brackish Tidal Estuary.
Ref-22
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Thomas, M.V. and R.C. Haas. 2000. Status of Yellow Perch and Walleye Populations in Michigan Waters of
Lake Erie, 1994-98. Fisheries Research Report 2054. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries
Division, Lansing. August.
Townsend, R.E. 1985. The right to fish as an external benefit of open access. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 42:2050-2053.
Trautman, M.B. 1981. The Fishes of Ohio, with Illustrated Keys. Revised ed. Ohio State University Press,
Columbus.
Ulanowicz, R.E. and B. Kinsman. 1978. Purgatorio — two rather different views of the same event. In Power
Plant Entrainment: A Biological Assessment, J.R. Schubel and B.C. Marcy, Jr. (eds.). Academic Press, New
York, pp. 245-253.
University of Washington. 2000. Invertebrates in the Plankton: Arthropoda.
http://depts.washington.edu/fhl/zoo432/plankton/plarthropoda/plarthropoda.html. Accessed 11/19/2002.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2002. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational
Outlook Handbook, 2002-03 Edition, Fishers and Fishing Vessel Operators, http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocosl77.htm.
Accessed 2002.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2004. Consumer Price Index (CPI) data: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Division
of Consumer Prices and Price Indexes. CPI-U, Not Seasonally Adjusted, http://www.bis.gov/cpi/home.htm.
Accessed 5/04.
U.S. DOI. 1993. 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. U.S. Department
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
U.S. DOI. 2002. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. U.S. Department
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
U.S. DOI. 2004. Fisheries: Aquatic and Endangered Resources. U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science
Center. U.S. Department of the Interior, http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/main.php7content = research risk&title =
Species%20at%20RiskO&menu = research. Accessed 6/23/04.
U.S. DOI and U.S. DOC. 2002. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census
Bureau. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. October.
http: //fa. r9 .fws. gov/surveys/surveys .html#survey_reports.
U.S. EPA. 1972. Dr. Clarence Tarzwell. Pollution of the Interstate Waters of Mount Hope Bay and its Tributaries
in the States of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Conference Proceedings, Providence, RI, January 6, 1972.
Volume 2. NTIS No. PB 230 572. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, pp. 591-623.
U.S. EPA. 1977. (Draft) Guidance for Evaluating the Adverse Impact of Cooling Water Intake Structures on the
Aquatic Environment: Section 316(b) P.L. 92-500. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1997. Guiding Principles for Monte Carlo Analysis. EPA/63O/R-97/001. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1998. Product Performance Test Guidelines OPPT 810.3500 Premises Treatments. EPA-712-C-98-
413. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Ref-23
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
U.S. EPA. 2000a. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. EPA 240-R-00-003. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC. September.
U.S. EPA. 2000b. Section 316(b) Industry Survey. Detailed Industry Questionnaire: Phase II Cooling Water
Intake Structures and Industry Short Technical Questionnaire: Phase II Cooling Water Intake Structures, January
2000 (OMB Control Number 2040-0213). Industry Screener Questionnaire: Phase I Cooling Water Intake
Structures, January, 1999 (OMB Control Number 2040-0203).
U.S. EPA. 2002. Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and
Marine Organisms. Fifth Edition. Section 11, Acute Toxicity Analysis. EPA-821-R-02-012. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, pp. 71-108.
U.S. EPA. 2004a. Chapter B4: RUM Analysis. Section 316(b) Phase II Final Rule — Regional Studies, Part B:
California. U.S. EPA.
U.S. EPA. 2004b. Chapter D4: RUM Analysis. Section 316(b) Phase II Final Rule — Regional Studies, Part D:
Mid-Atlantic. U.S. EPA.
U.S. EPA. 2004c. Chapter E4: RUM Analysis. Section 316(b) Phase II Final Rule — Regional Studies, Part E:
South-Atlantic. U.S. EPA.
U.S. EPA. 2004d. Chapter F4: RUM Analysis. Section 316(b) Phase II Final Rule — Regional Studies, Part F:
Gulf of Mexico. U.S. EPA.
U.S. EPA. 2004e. Regional Analysis Document for the Final Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, Engineering and Analysis Division.
EPA-821-R-02-003. February 12.
U.S. EPA 2004f The Regional Benefits Assessment for the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA 2006a. Economic and Benefits Analysis for the Final Section 316(b) Phase III Existing Facilities Rule.
EPA-XXX-XX-XX. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 2006b. National Estuary Program, Which Estuaries are in the NEP?
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/find.htm. Accessed 3/15/2006.
U.S. EPA. 2006c. Technical Development Document for the Final Section 316(b) Phase III Existing Facilities
Rule. EPA-821-R-06-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USFWS. 1978. Development of Fishes of the Mid-Atlantic Bight. An Atlas of Egg, Larval and Juvenile Stages.
FWS/OBS-78/12. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
USFWS. 1996a. Recovery Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Native Fishes. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Portland, OR.
USFWS. 1996b. The Endangered Species Act of 1973. A Summary of the ESA and Implementation Activities.
Updated October 1996. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, http://endangered.fws.gov/esasum.html. Accessed
10/10/00.
USFWS. 2004. Native Species Restoration. USFWS Fisheries, Great Lakes — Big Rivers.
http://midwest.fws.gov/Fisheries/topic-nativespecies.htm. Accessed 6/23/04.
Ref-24
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
USFWS. 2006a. Threatened and Endangered Species Database. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife .html. Accessed 4/6/2006.
USFWS. 2006b. Wisconsin Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Species. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, http://www.fws/gov/midwest/endangered/lists/state-wi.html. Accessed 4/6/2006.
USFWS and NMFS. 2000. Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing Handbook. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, http://endangered.fws.gov/hcp/hcpbook.html.
Accessed 3/6/00.
USGen New England. 2001. Variance Request Application and Partial Demonstration Under the Clean Water
Act, Section 316(a) and (b) in Support of Renewal of NPDES Permit No. MA 000 3654 for USGen New England,
Inc.'s Brayton Point Station. May 24.
U.S. Ocean Commission. 2002. Developing a National Ocean Policy: Mid-term Report of the U.S. Commission
on Ocean Policy. September. Available at
http://oceancommission.gov/documents/midterm report/midterm report.html.
U.S. OMB. 2003. Circular A-4. U.S. Office of Management and Budget. September 17, 2003.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf
Valiela, I. 1995. Spatial structure: Patchiness. In Marine Ecological Processes. Springer, New York, pp. 325-353.
Van den Avyle, M.J. and D.L. Fowler. 1984. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of
Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Atlantic) — Blue Crab. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report
USFWS/OBS-82/11. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TREL-82-4.
Vandenberg, T.P., G.L. Poe, and J.R. Powell. 2001. Assessing the accuracy of benefits transfers: Evidence from a
multi-site contingent valuation study of ground water quality. In The Economic Value of Water Quality, J.C.
Bergstrom, K.J. Boyle, and G.L. Poe (eds.). Edward Elgar Publishers, Northampton, MA.
Van Oosten, J. 1942. The age and growth of the Lake Erie white bass, Lepibema chrysops (Refinesque). Papers of
the Michigan Academy of Science Arts and Letters 27: 307-334.
Varian, H.R. 1992. Microeconomic Analysis. 3rd Edition. W.W. Norton, New York.
Vaughan, W.J. and C.S. Russell. 1982. Valuing a fishing day: An application of a systematic varying parameter
model. Land Economics 58(4):450-463.
Versar. 2006. Peer Review Package for "Willingness to Pay Survey Instrument for Section 316(b) Phase III
Cooling Water Intake Structures." Prepared for U.S. EPA Office of Water's Office of Science and Technology by
Versar, Inc., Springfield, VA.
Vetter, E.F. 1988. Estimation of natural mortality in fish stocks: A review. Fishery Bulletin 86 (l):25-43.
Virginia Tech. 1998. Marine and Coastal Species Information System. Fish and Wildlife Information Exchange.
http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/WWW/macsis/index.htm.
Wainger, L.A., D. King, J. Salzman, and J. Boyd. 2001. Wetland value indicators for scoring mitigation trades.
Stanford Environmental Law Journal 20(2):413-478.
Wallus, R., B.L. Yeager, and T.P. Simon. 1990. Reproductive Biology and Early Life History of Fishes in the
Ohio River Drainage, Volume I: Acipenseridae through Esocidae. Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga.
Ref-25
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Walsh, R., R.D. Bjonback, T.D. Rosenthal, and R. Aiken. 1985. Public Benefits of Programs to Protect
Endangered Wildlife in Colorado. Symposium on Issues and Technology in the Management of Impacted
Western Wildlife. Thorne Ecological Institute, Glenwood Springs, CO.
Walsh, R.G., D.M. Johnson, and J.R. McKean. 1990. Nonmarket values from two decades of research on
recreation demand. In Advances in Applied Micro-Economics, V.K. Smith and A.N. Link (eds.). JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT.
Walsh, R.G., J.B. Loomis, and R.A. Gillman. 1984. Valuing option, existence, and bequest demands for
wilderness. Land Economics 60(1): 14-29.
Wang, J.C.S. 1986. Fishes of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary and Adjacent Waters, California: A Guide to
the Early Life Histories. Prepared by the California Dept. of Water Resources, the California Dept. of Fish and
Game, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Technical Report 9 (FS/B10-
4ATR 86-9). Prepared for the Interagency Ecological Study Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary.
January, http://elib.cs.berkelev.edu/kopec/tr9/html/home.html. Accessed 11/01.
Wang, J.C.S. and R.J. Kernehan. 1979. Fishes of the Delaware Estuaries: A Guide to Early Life Histories. E.A.
Communication. Ecological Analysts, Inc., Towson, MD.
Wapora. 1979. Impingement and Entrainment Assessment Using the Production Foregone Analysis at J.R.
Whiting Plant During 1978. Prepared for Consumers Power Company. October.
Warlen, S.M., A.J. Chester, and M.T. Boyd. 1980. Growth of larval/early juvenile spot, Leiostomus xanthurus, in
North Carolina. In Anonymous. Annual report of the Southeast Fish Cent. Beaufort Lab., Beaufort, NC, to U.S.
Dep. Energy, July 1, pp. 456-472.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1997. Washington State Forage Fish. Pacific Herring.
http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/fish/forage/herring.htm.
Water Quality Act. 1987. Water Quality Act of 1987. Public Law 100-4. §317(a)(l)(A) and(B) adding §320 to the
Clean Water Act, 33, US.C. §1330.
Whitehead, J.C. and R. Aiken. 2000. An Analysis of Trends in Net Economic Values for Bass Fishing from the
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. East Carolina University, Department
of Economics, Greenville, NC. April.
Whitehead, J.C. and G.C. Blomquist. 1991. A link between behavior, information, and existence value. Leisure
Sciences 13:97-109.
Whitehead, J.C. and G.C. Blomquist. 1992. Ex ante willingness to pay with supply and demand uncertainty:
Implications for valuing a sea turtle protection programme. Applied Economics 24:981-988.
Whitehead, J.C. and T.C. Haab. 1999. Southeast marine recreational fishery statistical survey: Distance and catch
based choice sets. Marine Resource Economics 14(4):283-298.
Wild, P.W. and R.N. Tasto (eds.). 1983. Life History, Environment, and Mariculture Studies of the Dungeness
Crab, Cancer magister, with Emphasis on the Central California Fishery Resource. Fish Bulletin 172. California
Department of Fish and Game.
Williams, J.S. and P.W. Bettoli. 2003. Net Value of Trout Fishing Opportunities in Tennessee Tailwaters.
Fisheries Report 03-21. Final Report Submitted to the Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency.
Ref-26
-------
Section 316(b) Final Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Wilson, M.A. and S.R. Carpenter. 1999. Economic valuation of freshwater ecosystem services in the United
States: 1971-1997. Ecological Applications 9(3):772-783.
Wisconsin DNR. 2003. Adrift on the sea of life. Wisconsin Natural Resources June: 17-21.
Woodward, R.T. and Y.S. Wui. 2001. The economic value of wetland services: A meta-analysis. Ecological
Economics 37:257-270.
Ref-27
------- |